Terry Lavender

As Canadians commemorate Remembrance Day this year, many will reflect on the solemn beauty and eloquent simplicity of the iconic war poem, In Flanders Fields. This is the 100th anniversary of the poem written by �ؿ�ζSM alumnus John McCrae, a Canadian doctor who was in the trenches during World War I.

We will do our share

U of T archivist Loryl MacDonald takes us through the Fisher Library's exhibition, We Will Do Our Share: The �ؿ�ζSM and the Great War.

Dr. Homer Tien: from the battlefield to the ER

Dr. Homer Tien, recipient of the Order of Military Merit and assistant professor at U of T and director, trauma services, at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, recalls his exceptional advancements.

Canadian Forces: alumna retires after serving as surgeon general

Few people have served nearly four decades in the Canadian Forces. Fewer of these are doctors. Fewer still are women. And only one of these – �ؿ�ζSM medicine graduate Dr. Hilary F. Jaeger— has retired with the rank of brigadier general after serving as surgeon general of the Canadian Forces.

What can civilian hospitals learn from the military? Just ask this high school dropout turned trauma surgeon

Dr. Andrew Beckett is a highly credentialed trauma surgeon who has spent nearly two decades in the Canadian Forces – and whose work in war zones has led him to ask questions that never occur to most of his research colleagues back home.

Hillary or Donald? "Let’s just hope it’s a decisive outcome," U of T experts say

lavende4 — Tue, 08 Nov 2016 14:02:02 +0000

Hillary or Donald? "Let’s just hope it’s a decisive outcome," U of T experts say

lavende4 Tue, 11/08/2016 - 09:02

Cutline

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton cookies on sale at a Pennsylvania bakery (photo by Jeff Swensen/Getty Images)

Terry Lavender

Don Campbell

Author legacy

Don Campbell and Terry Lavender

Topic

The long 2016 U.S. election campaign finally draws to an end as millions of Americans go to the polls today to choose their next president.

Much of the media focus has been on the bitter race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. U of T News asked U of T Scarborough political scientists Ryan Hurl and Renan Levine for their thoughts on what states to pay attention to and what happens if this ends in another disputed election.

A coin toss of an election: Ryan Hurl

It’s been a roller-coaster of a campaign. What’s your prediction?

I have no idea. I think it’s a coin toss. Four years ago, the polls were off by two to three per cent. A shift of that margin in some of the states could affect things.

I think you can rule out a Trump landslide, and you can probably rule out a Clinton landslide. As for the other possible options – a narrow Trump victory or a narrow Clinton victory – I think the most likely outcome is a relatively narrow Clinton victory based upon her taking Florida and taking almost all the other states that President Barack Obama won except Iowa.

What should Canadians be watching for tonight?

We know with a fair amount of certainty what’s going to happen in the House of Representatives. Out of 435 seats, there are really only 22 that are competitive, and so the Democrats would need a landslide election by their candidate for them to retake the House. In the Senate, the differences are much smaller, but it’s possible for the Democrats to retake the Senate. The most likely outcome is a narrow majority for either party.

In terms of what to look for at the presidential level, the path for Trump is exceedingly narrow. If he loses any one of three states – North Carolina, Florida or Ohio – I can’t see any path to victory. But there is a possibility that the polls really are missing something in terms of the number of core Trump supporters – white males lacking college education. If there’s a big shift in the voter turnout in states like Pennsylvania or Michigan, the results could be unexpected.

I don’t think that’s going to happen, but there is a small possibility.

What can we expect for the next four years if Clinton does win?

It may be the case that Clinton is going to be more effective working with Congress than Obama was. Perhaps she’ll be willing to concede more. If she only wins a narrow victory, that means she’ll have almost lost to a really weak Republican candidate, and she will be looking towards 2020 when she’ll be running against a much more competent candidate who might be raising some of the same issues that Trump was.

On the other hand, any compromise that she might make with Republicans in the House or the Senate has the potential of creating some kind of left-wing insurgency. So she’s going to be faced with a very difficult strategic position. One possibility is already in the works – Senate Democrats and Republicans are thinking about some kind of compromise on corporate tax reform and infrastructure spending, which will mean some kind of reform to the corporate tax. A lot of those in the Democratic Party’s left – the Bernie Sanders wing – will have problems with this.

Beyond that, it’s very difficult to see – particularly in terms of working with the House Republicans – any collaboration on, for example, significant immigration reform.

There are some issues that the government needs to address, particularly health care. That’s an incredibly difficult issue to deal with, precisely because some of the most heavily organized interest groups in the country, particularly retirees, don’t want to take any kind of loss in terms of health-care spending or any significant health-care reform.

If Trump doesn’t accept the results, will that have an effect on Clinton’s legitimacy?

It’s difficult to say because it remains to be seen what Trump is going to do. If the results are beyond any possible margin of fraud, then I don’t think it’ll be a problem. If we end up in a situation like the year 2000, I think there’s the potential for real trouble. Let’s just hope it’s a decisive outcome, and we know who the president’s going to be because this has been so divisive that I don’t know if the nation can take another disputed election.

Is this level of divisiveness new or has there always been this kind of polarization?

The nature of polarization is changing. If you think about what Trump has done, he’s focussed on policy areas where there’s actually a significant amount of overlap between the two parties. The main issues raised by Trump – immigration reform, foreign policy and trade – those are actually areas where there was a lot of middle ground. But it turns out that a lot of Republican voters don’t accept that middle ground. I think that the parties have become more polarized across a lot of issues. What Trump shows is that the focus of that polarization might be changing.

Why North Carolina and Nevada may be the key battlegrounds tonight: Renan Levine

If Hillary Clinton wins North Carolina will that pretty much tell us who will win the election?

Let’s put it this way: If Hillary Clinton wins North Carolina, and especially if she wins big there, you can spend the rest of the night binge-watching Netflix because the outcome will not be in doubt. If the race is too close to call, or if Donald Trump wins North Carolina, nervous Democrats and excited Republicans will have to wait for the returns from Nevada.

Why is North Carolina so important to presidential elections?

North Carolina is what’s called a purple state – it’s not clearly Democrat or Republican. That’s because of its demography, size and voting history. North Carolina was one of two states that Barack Obama won in 2008, but lost in his bid for re-election in 2012. Republican Mitt Romney beat Obama in North Carolina by only about two per cent. The only state with a narrower margin of victory was Florida.

The size of North Carolina’s population is key. It is population size that determines how many votes the state gets in the electoral college. Every state gets a minimum of three votes and then more votes are allocated based on population. The most populous state, California, has 55 votes. Traditional battlegrounds Florida and Ohio have 29 and 18 votes respectively. North Carolina, with 15 votes is a much bigger prize than other battleground states this year. New Hampshire has four, while Iowa and Nevada both have six.

Why is North Carolina usually such a close call?

The population there is a mix of African-Americans and educated whites in large urban areas – these are traditionally Democratic voters. North Carolina’s small towns tend to have conservative white constituents who tend to vote Republican. And there is a growing Latino population in the state, an important voice in this election. North Carolina will be kind of a bellwether: if Clinton does well there, she can expect to do well in other states with even larger urban areas populated by minorities and well-educated whites like Michigan and Pennsylvania.

So if Trump wins North Carolina, why does Nevada become important?

Nevada is another battleground this year. Democrats usually win Nevada when they win enough votes in Las Vegas and its surrounding suburbs to overcome Republican majorities in the rest of the state. While Las Vegas has a large Latino population, it also has an unusually large population of whites without university degrees, a demographic that is among the most receptive to Trump. So while Democrats are well-positioned, Republicans also have hope that they can do well enough in Las Vegas to win the state’s six electoral college votes.

But Nevada, as well as small states like New Hampshire and Iowa, will not matter much if North Carolina goes to the Democrats. North Carolina’s 15 electoral college votes almost entirely make up for the loss of all three of those states.

Is there a scenario where both candidates won’t get the necessary 270 seats to win the election?

Yes. It’s possible that the election won’t be decided even if Trump wins North Carolina because there is one scenario that could still keep him from getting the 270 electoral votes he’ll need to win. Evan McMullin is an independent Republican running as a third-party candidate in Utah. McMullin has strong support from fellow Mormons who distrust Trump. If McMullin ekes out a victory in Utah, he can stop Trump. So even if Trump wins everywhere else Romney won (including North Carolina) in 2012, and he gets the five “blue” states considered battlegrounds –Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and Ohio – there wouldn’t be a decision in that scenario. Clinton would have 269 electoral college votes and Trump 262 in that case. If that happens, the election will be determined by the House of Representatives. That’s only happened once before, almost two hundred years ago in 1824!

Canadian drive and audacity needed to tackle world problems, U of T conference told

lavende4 — Mon, 07 Nov 2016 20:02:08 +0000

Canadian drive and audacity needed to tackle world problems, U of T conference told

lavende4 Mon, 11/07/2016 - 15:02

Cutline

Maria Banda (right): Canada needs to be radical again (photo by Richard Fitoussi)

Terry Lavender

Author legacy

Terry Lavender

Topic

Global Lens

Bill Graham Centre for Contemporary International History

Refugees

Land Mines

Trinity College

Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy

Global

Climate Change

International

Twenty years ago, a group of Canadian diplomats, politicians and civil servants used some very undiplomatic pressure tactics to get a landmark treaty banning landmines through the United Nations.

The drive and audacity that led to that treaty is desperately needed today to help the world find a solution to problems such as climate change and displaced people, �ؿ�ζSM researchers told a conference in Toronto last week.

The conference, The Ottawa Process Twenty Years Later, was organized by U of T’s Bill Graham Centre for Contemporary International History. It was held to commemorate the 20^th anniversary of the signing of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction.

Speakers at the two-day conference included Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion and many of the key players in what was called the Ottawa Process, such as former foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy.

U of T participants included Faculty of Law research associate Maria Banda; Erin Mooney, a senior research associate at U of T’s Trinity College who is also a senior protection adviser to the United Nations, Protection Capacity (ProCap); and Robert Bothwell, a history professor at the Faculty of Arts & Science and U of T's Munk School of Global Affairs.

Watch video highlights of the conference

Banda, who also practises international law in Washington, D.C., said Canada should lead the drive to help vulnerable countries deal with the effects of climate change.

“Canada used to be good at helping because we were able to come up with innovative, creative ideas for some of the big challenges of the day,” Banda said. “We need to be a bit radical again.”

Climate change is the most urgent issue of the day, she said, because it is more than an environmental problem. It’s also a threat to peace and security, especially in countries less resilient to shocks than our own, she said, noting that Syria’s civil war, for example, is rooted in a drought that has lasted for a decade.

“If Canada wants to help, it needs to think bigger, think long-term," she said. "How do we prevent another Syria? How do we help hundreds of millions of people keep their homes? Because even if we win this particular battle, we’re still at the risk of losing the larger war because climate-induced disasters will keep sending more refugees, more migrants every year.”

While acknowledging the current refugee crisis, Mooney said the current focus on refugees is ignoring internally displaced people – those who have been forced to leave their homes because of wars and other upheavals, but who aren’t classified as refugees because they haven’t crossed international borders. Sixty-five million people around the world have been displaced, she said.

“It’s a global crisis."

She added that countries producing mass displacement are found in every region of the world: Africa, Middle East and South America.

Displaced people are in considerable danger, she said.

“Displacement, whatever its causes, exposes people to a wide range of risks: loss of home, loss of livelihood and separation of families. They are also exposed to protection risks – child trafficking, forced recruitment, sexual violence and so forth.”

Thanks to its international reputation and success with the Syrian refugee resettlement program, Canada has the moral authority to urge the world to adopt more stringent protection policies for internally displaced people. But policies aren’t enough, Mooney acknowledged. They need to be backed up with support and security for humanitarian workers and the displaced people they are working with. And here, Canada can play a role as well.

“This is an opportunity for Canada’s plan to resume peacekeeping operations,” she said. “Wherever we choose to deploy a peacekeeping operation, there are bound to be displaced persons and bound to be a need for a protection mandate.”

But “we need a full-court press, a messianic drive” similar to the Ottawa Process, Mooney added.

“This is an urgent challenge, one of epic and ever increasing proportions, and it has massive repercussions for international peace and security.”

Police should never have power to tap journalists' phones, says U of T’s Jeffrey Dvorkin

lavende4 — Thu, 03 Nov 2016 16:03:28 +0000

Police should never have power to tap journalists' phones, says U of T’s Jeffrey Dvorkin

lavende4 Thu, 11/03/2016 - 12:03

Cutline

Press freedom is at stake with revelations this week that Quebec police have been tracking cell phones of some journalists (photo by jeanbaptisteparis via Flickr)

Terry Lavender

Author legacy

Terry Lavender

Topic

Canadian journalists and civil liberty advocates are outraged over revelations that various police forces in Quebec have been tracking the cell phones of local journalists.

Quebec provincial police admitted this week to police surveillance of six prominent journalists in 2013 as they tried to track down a person alleged to have leaked sensitive wiretap information involving a prominent labour leader. This followed revelations that Montreal police had been keeping tabs on the iPhone of a La Presse reporter, including tracking his whereabouts using his phone's GPS chip.

Today, the Quebec government announced a full public inquiry into the growing scandal, but critics are still concerned over what this means for freedom of the press.

U of T News spoke with Jeffrey Dvorkin, director of the journalism program at U of T Scarborough, about the controversy. He is a former vice-president of news for National Public Radio and a former managing editor with CBC Radio.

Why should Canadians care about this?

Canadians should care because access to journalistic work and “work product” (in other words, the stuff that doesn’t get into the final reporting) should always be obtained with a warrant. Secondly, the amount of information about all of us – journalists and non-journalists – should be an area of great concern. We are living in an age of transparency and a diminishing lack of privacy. Google through Gmail has forced us to surrender any concept of privacy. The police are only doing (illegally) what Google does with our permission.

Is it common for police to employ surveillance on journalists in Canada?

Probably more than we know. We should know what all levels of government are doing to know more about us. Sometimes being paranoid is the only rational response to the times we live in. When I was managing editor at CBC Radio in the '90s, we discovered that the Canadian military could tap our phones without a warrant. We got that changed. At least we hope we did...

What effect will these revelations have on investigative journalists in Quebec and elsewhere?

It will make journalists more cautious about what is said in supposedly private communications. My own hope is that journalists will not give up on investigative reporting. But instead of being overly dependent on Internet research, more face-to-face, “shoe-leather” reporting might be preferred in certain circumstances.

Are there any circumstances where police should have the authority to tap journalists’ phones?

Never. Not without a warrant. If ever there was an argument for more media lawyers, this is it.

Shanghai, Toronto and other urban regions vital to prosperity, U of T President Meric Gertler tells Chinese audience

lavende4 — Thu, 03 Nov 2016 12:56:56 +0000

Shanghai, Toronto and other urban regions vital to prosperity, U of T President Meric Gertler tells Chinese audience

lavende4 Thu, 11/03/2016 - 08:56

Cutline

U of T President Meric Gertler with applicants for the U of T Scarborough Green Path program from Shanghai No.3 Girls’ High School (photo by Vinitha Gengatharan)

Terry Lavender

Andrew Zhao

Author legacy

Terry Lavender and Andrew Zhao

Topic

Global Lens

President Meric Gertler

Urban centres such as Shanghai and Toronto are vital contributors to local and national prosperity, �ؿ�ζSM President Meric Gertler told a forum on innovation, creativity and urban regions in the populous Chinese city earlier this week.

In his latest trip to China, President Gertler has spoken at conferences in Shanghai and Beijing, visited alumni and prospective students, talked with Canadian embassy officials and met with Chinese university colleagues.

At the Shanghai forum, he was a keynote speaker.

Urban regions, he told the audience, “are recognized as sources of creativity and innovation, drivers of economic growth and resiliency.”

With a population of 24 million, Shanghai “exemplifies this better than perhaps anywhere on the globe," Gertler said.

Universities such as the �ؿ�ζSM and Shanghai Jiao Tong play an important role in this process, he said, noting that they “excel at producing, attracting and retaining talent.”

The relationship is symbiotic, he explained. Urban regions foster the development of world-class research institutions and universities, while universities foster world-class cities.

It is important, he said, for cities like Shanghai and Toronto to invest in the infrastructure that will attract talented people and institutions.

“Extraordinary things can happen when sustained and wise investment over many years builds infrastructure, brings together extraordinary talent and fosters connections among different fields, industries and leading global regions.”

After attending the conference, President Gertler visited Shanghai No.3 Girls’ High School, one of U of T’s Green Path affiliate schools.

Under the Green Path program, U of T Scarborough has established a partnership with 21 of the top high schools in China. Green Path is a 12-week summer preparatory program that invites top high school students from China to build their academic skills while adapting to life in Canada. Once students successfully complete the program, they go directly into first-year undergraduate studies at U of T.

Learn more about Green Path

Ted Sargent, U of T's vice-president international, accompanied President Gertler for part of the trip, reflecting the importance that U of T places on the region.

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education Dean Glen Jones was also in China this past week. Jones was part of an international panel, conducting a review of Sun Yat-sen University (also known as Zhongshan University) for China’s Ministry of Education. He also met with education partners at Zhejiang Normal University in Hangzhou, visited with alumni and spoke at a forum on world-class universities.

During his visit, President Gertler also took time out to photobomb a Shanghai wedding, go sightseeing and enjoy some of the local cuisine.

Photobombing a wedding outside the President's office at Shanghai Jiao Tong University (President Zhang to the left of the bride) #UofT #uoftalumni

A photo posted by Meric Gertler (@uoftpres) on Oct 30, 2016 at 12:33am PDT

Shanghai skyline by night #UofT #uoftalumni

A photo posted by Meric Gertler (@uoftpres) on Oct 31, 2016 at 9:33pm PDT

Shanghai lunch- steamed pork buns at Nan Xiang! #UofT #uoftalumni

A photo posted by Meric Gertler (@uoftpres) on Oct 30, 2016 at 9:58pm PDT

With His Worship Yang Xiong, Mayor of Shanghai (R) and Prof Jiang Sixian (L), Chairman, SJTU #UofT #uoftalumni

A photo posted by Meric Gertler (@uoftpres) on Oct 29, 2016 at 6:27pm PDT

PhD student Asif Farooq, the founding managing editor of U of T's China Open Research Network, had some sightseeing suggestions for President Gertler in Beijing.

“Given that the President has a background in geography, I think he would like to visit Beijing's hutongs [narrow alleys which are home to many old, traditional courtyard residences]. Hutongs have been restored as tourist attractions,” Farooq told U of T News writer Andrew Zhao.

“Walking through the alleys can give him a glimpse of the old Beijing, and discovering restaurants tucked inside those alley corners could be a fun experience. He could find some of the pubs inside hutongs fascinating given most have a courtyard with ancient rooftops. Figuring out the past dynasties’ influence on those rooftop architectures could be a pleasant endeavour for any curious mind.”

Anti-Muslim prejudice: Canadians have no right to feel smug, say U of T experts

lavende4 — Tue, 01 Nov 2016 17:41:38 +0000

Anti-Muslim prejudice: Canadians have no right to feel smug, say U of T experts

lavende4 Tue, 11/01/2016 - 13:41

Cutline

A Syrian refugee family at a welcoming dinner on Toronto's waterfront (photo by Bernard Weil/Toronto Star via Getty Images)

Terry Lavender

Author legacy

Terry Lavender

Topic

Global Lens

Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy

Muslims

Immigration

Refugees

Faculty of Arts & Science

International

Global

Politics

Canadians have no reason to feel superior to Americans and Europeans about their attitudes towards immigrants and refugees, �ؿ�ζSM political scientist Phil Triadafilopoulos told a packed forum at the Munk School of Global Affairs recently.

Triadafilopoulos, an associate professor at U of T Scarborough, was participating in an all-U of T panel discussion called Banning Muslims: Explaining Xenophobia and Islam in Europe and the U.S. He believes Canadians are just as xenophobic as other peoples, and that our acceptance of immigrants and refugees is due in large part to our electoral system.

Other participants at the Munk forum included Randall Hansen, professor of political science in the Faculty of Arts & Science who is also the director of the Munk School's Centre for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies; Chris Cochrane, an associate professor of political science at U of T Scarborough; and Anna Korteweg, chair of the department of sociology at U of T Mississauga. The debate was hosted by the Munk School's Brian Stewart and organized by Aisha Ahmad, an assistant professor of political science at U of T Scarborough.

Ahmad said she organized the panel after a spate of anti-Muslim sentiment and actions in America, Europe and Canada. She cited as examples U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump’s call for a ban on Muslims coming to the U.S. and Canadian Conservative leadership candidates demanding restrictions on women wearing niqabs and wanting immigrants and refugees to be tested for “Canadian values."

“Canadians are not especially open to asylum seekers and refugees,” Triadafilopoulos said. “At best we will resettle 50,000 Syrian refugees. We could do more. We could do much more, and other states have done much more despite facing more trying circumstances.”

Every country in the North Atlantic world has experienced a backlash against Muslims and refugees, he said. Canada’s was more muted because our first-past-the-post electoral system means that politicians must pay heed to recent immigrants who have influence in vote-rich areas in and around our major cities.

European countries with proportional representation are more prone to anti-Muslim rhetoric because extremist parties can gain votes by indulging in such rhetoric, he said. In the United States, the primary system allowed Donald Trump to gain support with similar anti-Muslim sentiments.

Hansen, who noted that European attitudes towards Muslims are sometimes grounded in historical conflicts, had a different explanation for Canadian tolerance: our secure borders.

“Immigration is popular in Canada, not because of our incredible merits, our extraordinary tolerance or our exceptional Canadian virtues," he said. "It’s popular because we feel secure. We have always had control of our borders. What we’ve seen in the U.S. and Germany is that when people have a sense that they have lost control of their borders, support for immigration collapses and populism flourishes.”

But Canadians can pat themselves on the back for their success in integrating immigrants and refugees into Canadian society, Cochrane said.

“Evidence shows that Canada does an incredibly good job of integrating immigrants. For example, we have very high rates of citizenship acquisition by immigrants, high rates of labour force participation, high rates of support for political participation among immigrants, high rates of adoption of majority values and high rates of intermarriage as well.”

Hansen held out hope that anti-Muslim sentiment will subside in Europe and the United States.

“Much of this reflects the last gasp on the part of a bunch of racist, misogynist and homophobic white men who once ruled the roost and whose world has disappeared,” he said.

Hardline anti-Muslim politicians will never be able to get more than 35 or 40 per cent of the vote, if even that, Hansen predicted.

Cochrane expressed some sympathy for those who feel ambivalent towards refugees and immigrants.

“It’s perfectly natural for people to feel uncomfortable in the presence of things that they’re not used to and things that they haven’t experienced before," Cochrane said. "People who are losing their jobs have valid concerns about their prospects. They are the ones most likely to be affected or at least possibly by immigration. So it’s not entirely a mystery why there is unease about immigration.”

However, Triadafilopoulos said, anti-immigrant attitudes have implications for democracy, peace, and international security.

“Fear is not a good ground for generating social cohesion," he said. "It turns fellow citizens into scapegoats and friends into enemies.”

Cochrane noted that Muslims bear the brunt of anti-immigrant sentiment today.

“The question is why are we singling out Muslims," he said. "Is it a question of religion or a question of ethnic diversity more generally? Is there in fact something different about Muslims? I haven’t seen any evidence to suggest that there is. The evidence suggests the opposite."

Watch a closed-captioned replay of the debate here.

U of T’s Tony Dean appointed to Senate

lavende4 — Mon, 31 Oct 2016 20:37:29 +0000

U of T’s Tony Dean appointed to Senate

lavende4 Mon, 10/31/2016 - 16:37

Cutline

Tony Dean: “I am honoured that the Prime Minister has nominated me to serve in the Senate during this important period of reform” (Photo by Marie Boutilier )

Terry Lavender

Author legacy

Terry Lavender

Topic

Our Community

Senate

School of Public Policy & Governance

Tony Dean

U of T

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is recommending the appointment of �ؿ�ζSM Professor Tony Dean to the Canadian Senate, the Prime Minister announced today.

Dean is a professor at U of T’s School of Public Policy & Governance (SPPG) in the Faculty of Arts & Science. He was a senior civil servant in the Ontario government before coming to U of T in 2009. He served as secretary of the cabinet, head of the Ontario Public Service, deputy minister of labour and as the deputy minister in the cabinet office responsible for cross-government policy coordination.

Dean was one of six independent senators named from Ontario. Howard Wetston, a Jackman Adjunct Professor at U of T’s Faculty of Law was also named. Wetston is a former federal court judge who once led the Ontario Securities Commission and Ontario Energy Board. The appointments are formally subject to the approval of the Governor General.

Dean said he looked forward to serving his country as a senator.

“I am honoured that the Prime Minister has nominated me to serve in the Senate during this important period of reform," he said. "Following a long career as a non-partisan public servant, I would only contemplate serving the public in an independent capacity.

“The Prime Minister was clear that he expects me to make a significant contribution to the work of the Senate, and to help tackle the broad range of challenges and opportunities facing the country.”

SPPG Director Peter Loewen said Dean was a good choice for the Senate.

“Tony Dean is the ideal public servant,” Loewen said. “He is principled, intelligent, innovative and committed to the public good. We’ve been very lucky to have him at the School of Public Policy & Governance. Our loss is Canada’s gain.

“Tony has a remarkable record of achievement, including reaching the highest level of the public service in Ontario. Under his watch, the province fundamentally changed the way citizens received everyday services from the government. It was just one achievement in a long list.”

The other senators named today were Gwen Boniface, former commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police; Sabi Marwah, recently retired as vice-chairman and chief operating officer at Scotiabank; Lucie Moncion, president and chief executive officer of the Alliance des Caisses Populaires de L’Ontario; and Kimberly Pate, executive director of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies.

With the new appointments today and nine appointments made last week, there are now 38 non-affiliated senators along with 21 Liberals and 40 Conservatives. The 15 appointments made in the past two weeks were the first since Trudeau introduced new mechanisms to nominate and choose senators to restore it as an independent chamber of “sober second thought”.

U of T constitutional expert David Schneiderman said it is too early to say whether Trudeau will succeed in reforming the Senate.

“There are many problems that could arise,” said Schneiderman, a professor in the Faculty of Law. “Independent senators in an already powerful Senate might give rise to more flexing of independent muscle. These folks, even if impressive, are not elected or accountable.

“The other thing to note, again hypothetically speaking, is that independent senators can still organize themselves. We might find voting blocs and coalitions arising within the independent flank or working with the party appointees still sitting in the chamber. Partisan rule, of one sort or another, may be inevitable. It may be the only way to get things done in an upper chamber.”

Recalling the Samsung Galaxy Note 7: U of T expert explains the blow to Korean society

lavende4 — Wed, 26 Oct 2016 12:54:12 +0000

Recalling the Samsung Galaxy Note 7: U of T expert explains the blow to Korean society

lavende4 Wed, 10/26/2016 - 08:54

Cutline

A Samsung store in the Gangnam district of Seoul (photo by Ed Jones/AFP/Getty Images)

Terry Lavender

Author legacy

Terry Lavender

Topic

When Samsung announced earlier this month that it was stopping production of its flagship smartphone, the Galaxy Note 7, and recalling all existing phones, the jolt was felt around the world. But in South Korea, where Samsung is the largest conglomerate or “chaebol” in the country, controlling everything from chemicals to electronics, health care and life insurance, there's a lot more at stake.

Tina Park is a PhD candidate in the department of history at the �ؿ�ζSM, focusing on the transformation of Canadian-Korean relations & history of globalization.

She spoke to U of T News about Samsung and the role of the chaebols in Korean society.

What is the chaebol system?

The “chaebol” refers to conglomerates that dominate South Korea’s economy. The word “chae” means “wealth” and “bol” means “clan” in Korean. In South Korean culture, the chaebols are like dynasties. Over the years, the descendants of the founders have retained control of the management of these companies, and the families have remained very wealthy. Among the largest chaebols are Samsung, LG, Hyundai, and SK Group, but there are dozens of others. These conglomerates are also very powerful in how much control they exercise in the South Korean economy – in the early 21st century, the chaebols produced roughly two-thirds of South Korea’s total exports and attracted a large part of the country’s foreign capital inflow. Last year, Samsung Group alone accounted for roughly 20 per cent of South Korea’s $527 billion in exports.

The chaebol structure originated in the 1960s. In the aftermath of the Korean War, the South Korean economy was impoverished, with the national GDP per capita at around US$67. When Park seized power in 1961, the South Korean government adopted an export-led industrial policy that favoured and strongly supported chaebols, such as guaranteed loans from the banking sector, protection from competition, and other legal and institutional mechanisms, which enabled them to take big risks, especially in the heavy and chemical industrialization industry in the '70s. In addition to heavy exports, these companies invested very heavily in R&D, recruited the best of South Korea’s brains and quickly emerged as competitive players in the international market. The close collaboration between the state and the chaebol was instrumental for South Korea’s economic miracle. South Korea today has the world’s 13th largest national GDP. From Koreans selling Samsung radios to Canadians in the 1970s, bilateral trade between South Korea and Canada has grown exponentially by about 3,000 times to where we are today.

How influential are companies such as Samsung in the Korean economy?

The chaebols are hugely influential in the South Korean economy because often one company would have subsidiaries in many different areas, such as electronics, food, amusement parks, hotels, semiconductors, etc. It is entirely possible for an average Korean to be born in a Samsung hospital, buy groceries from CJ &Foods, ride a Hyundai car, work for LG electronics and enjoy shopping at Lotte department store. So within South Korea, it is impossible to escape the chaebol influence.

What about their cultural influence?

In addition to their economic dominance, these conglomerates and their brands serve as a source of pride for many Koreans, both domestically and internationally. Purchasing South Korean brands is considered as an act of patriotism by many Koreans in the diaspora community, in addition to whatever economic or technological value they carry. Many young South Korean students dream of working for one of the big chaebol companies and undergo intense preparation, not only because the job market is very competitive and these jobs pay well, but also because of the social status they symbolize. A “Samsung man” for instance would appear more attractive to Korean women looking for a potential husband because it would imply that he is a well-educated and successful man with stable future. The chaebols are heavy spenders in R&D, various educational programs, the entertainment industry, and even the health care and social welfare sectors, so the latest Hallyu (Korean) wave cannot be fully understood without realizing the capital behind it. South Korea is still a very hierarchical society, so the prevalence of chaebol culture perpetuates the best and worst of capitalism. Chaebols now influence how people relate to each other, the latest trends and even the value system.

Do they have an effect on the political system?

Absolutely. Since the 60s, the chaebols have always had strong collaboration with South Korea’s political leaders and with a cult of personality associated with the founders of chaebol like Lee Kun-Hee, the chairman of Samsung Group. Concerns have been raised about corruption and bribery between the chaebol and leading politicians, and public opinion on the chaebols have tended to fluctuate a lot in the recent past. There is a certain sense of resentment at the concentration of so much wealth and political influence in the hands of leading families. Some would also argue that the dominance of chaebol culture creates an unfair playing field for small- and medium-sized enterprises, and women are still not seen very frequently in top leadership positions.

Are there any signs of the chaebol system weakening or changing?

To be sure, the chaebols are often under a lot of fire and are frequently scrutinized, but they have been slow to change for a number of reasons. First, these conglomerates have proven to be very resilient and made significant contributions to the South Korean economy.

The prevalence of the chaebols in South Korea makes it difficult for any quick change. Millions of South Koreans are involved with the chaebols, either as employees, customers or even competitors. The highly educated, extremely productive workforce, coupled with South Korea’s strong social cohesion, have all contributed to the survival of chaebols. Samsung Electronics, for instance, has long been seen as one the most technologically and commercially progressive players in the international market, largely thanks to its human capital. There are generational changes within chaebol families and a growing number of small- and medium-sized enterprises are entering the competition, but I think it will take quite a while for the chaebol system to change in any meaningful way.

Will Samsung’s setback with regard to the Galaxy Note 7 have a long-term effect on the company and its position in Korean society/economy?

The latest crisis with Samsung Galaxy Note 7 has been very unfortunate. In the quest for making things “faster, better and cheaper,” Samsung has jeopardized the safety of its customers and has not been efficient in providing solutions. South Korean customers, who have generally been very loyal to the Galaxy Android phones, are expressing frustrations about the lack of clarity on the return policy and lack of proper compensation. The full consequences of the Note 7 crisis remain to be seen in the coming years in terms of brand credibility, sales of future models and general safety issues surrounding smartphones. Samsung Electronic is the biggest subsidiary of Samsung Group, and the investors have already shaved off roughly $20 billion in Samsung’s market value. The recall will cost at least $5 billion or more and most surely affect Samsung’s market share in the smartphone industry. How quickly Samsung adopts the “lessons learned” from the Note 7 crisis will be the real test for this tech giant.

Free trade with Europe is not dead, but it’s in a coma, says U of T political scientist

lavende4 — Mon, 24 Oct 2016 13:02:21 +0000

Free trade with Europe is not dead, but it’s in a coma, says U of T political scientist

lavende4 Mon, 10/24/2016 - 09:02

Cutline

Protesters outside a meeting on CETA at the Parliament of Wallonia in Belgium (Nicolas Lambert via AFP/Getty Images)

Terry Lavender

Author legacy

Terry Lavender

Topic

European and Canadian politicians and diplomats are scrambling this week to salvage a trade agreement that was supposed to be signed Thursday, but which is now in doubt because of the objections of Wallonia, a francophone region in Belgium.

If ratified by Canada and the European Union, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) would open up markets and drop nearly all import taxes on everything from food to cars to metal and forestry products.

U of T News spoke to Stefan Renckens, an assistant professor of political science at U of T Scarborough, about the collapse of the trade agreement. Renckens has a master’s degree from the University of Leuven in Belgium and worked there as a research and teaching assistant at the Institute for International and European Policy and as a research fellow of the Flemish Research Foundation before moving to North America.

Why is Wallonia balking at CETA?

There are substantial objections and political motivations. Substantially, one of the contentious issues is the so-called Investor-State Dispute Settlement mechanism, whereby foreign companies can sue governments. Even though a modified, more modest version has now been introduced in CETA, compared to the original draft and to other existing trade treaties, there is still a fear that this gives too much power to foreign companies and will lead to governments self-censuring out of fear of being sued by a company. In addition, there is fear – justified or not – that CETA can over time lead to a lowering of social, environmental and food safety rules, and that the elimination of trade barriers will lead to a loss of jobs in the agricultural and industrial sectors.

Considering the specific situation in Belgium, political motivations play a role as well. Over the last few months, there has been increased attention to several of these trade agreements, in particular the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), an agreement the EU is negotiating with the U.S. The negative perceptions around the TTIP negotiations have spilled over to CETA and have led to significant mobilization by civil society, which culminated in a large demonstration in Brussels in September.

Why does Wallonia have the power to veto the deal?

While the EU has the sole competence to negotiate trade agreements, the European Commission decided to label CETA as a “mixed agreement” instead of an “EU-only” agreement, indicating that both EU and member state competences were being touched upon in the agreement. As a result, 38 national and regional parliaments need to vote on CETA. This would in essence not be a problem if Belgium was a normal federal country. However, unlike other federal systems, there's no hierarchy of rules in Belgium, meaning that a decision by a regional parliament cannot be overruled at the federal level. And hence Wallonia has veto power.

Is CETA dead?

Not quite yet. The last few days, there were attempts to overcome the objections of Wallonia, especially around the dispute settlement mechanism, but they officially failed on Friday when Freeland left the negotiations. While the official deadline for an agreement was set for Friday, the unofficial one is Monday, by which time Canada would decide whether or not to cancel Justin Trudeau’s trip to the signing ceremony. Sources inside the European Commission have indicated that they will continue talking to the Wallonia government to see whether an agreement can be reached. So maybe over the weekend, we could see white smoke, but I doubt it.

Wallonia had hoped that they would get more time to negotiate. Their argument was that they notified the European Commission of their concerns already a year ago, and that not much was done to alleviate them. A few more weeks or months of negotiations shouldn’t be an issue, they argue, especially since just over the last few days several concessions have been made, which shows there is still room for negotiations. From the other side, EU officials and politicians from member states are saying that it is irresponsible to veto the agreement at such a late stage (negotiations started in 2009) and after all the other parliaments have agreed to sign. They argue that reopening the negotiations is not that easy, since it will undoubtedly put issues back on the table that negotiators thought were agreed upon. Over the last few days, the parties have only worked at improving an interpretative document that clarifies the agreement, instead of changing the agreement itself. But maybe the only way to alleviate Wallonia’s concern is to open up the agreement itself, which may be opening Pandora’s box.

Several Belgian politicians – especially of the Flemish Liberal Party Open-VLD – have suggested that the Belgian federal minister of foreign affairs should ignore Wallonia's “no” and vote in the Council of Ministers to sign the treaty anyway. This would, however, be unconstitutional and not hold up in the Belgian Constitutional Court. The Belgian minister of foreign affairs has said he will not do this. And without his yes vote, there is no agreement.

If no agreement is reached over the weekend, it looks like CETA will be at least in a coma for the near future. I believe they will try to resuscitate it at some later stage, since I don’t think they want to throw away seven years of hard work. But for now, it doesn’t look good, not just for CETA but also and especially for TTIP.

How important is CETA for Europe? For Canada?

Proponents say it will lead to economic growth and job creation. Opponents both in the EU and in Canada are saying that the gains will be modest at most. It is extremely hard to predict these potential gains, and each side has their own reports to back up their claims. Equally important as its pure economic impact is its political importance. Not signing the treaty would be a political setback for the EU, since it will be seen as an unreliable partner. EU officials are now saying that if we can’t even conclude a trade treaty with a close ally like Canada that shares many of our own values, with whom can we then credibly conclude a trade treaty? Even if it is signed in the end, it will certainly lead to a discussion on the way trade deals are negotiated by the EU and the voting procedure that is causing this crisis now.

Is Wallonia’s rejection indicative of wider European unease about free trade agreements?

There certainly is broader disagreement and concern in Europe about globalization in general, not just trade liberalization. This backlash follows in the wake of the Great Recession, austerity politics, and the emergence and popularity of populist parties. There were and still are concerns about CETA in countries such as Germany, France and Eastern European countries, even though none of them have formally blocked the process like Wallonia now has. The secrecy of the negotiations has also been used by opponents to argue that deals are being made against the interests of the people.

UN missed chance to demonstrate gender equality commitment, says U of T student Mieka Buckley-Pearson

lavende4 — Thu, 20 Oct 2016 16:11:56 +0000

UN missed chance to demonstrate gender equality commitment, says U of T student Mieka Buckley-Pearson

lavende4 Thu, 10/20/2016 - 12:11

Cutline

Mieka Buckley-Pearson speaking at the United Nations Association in Canada (Photo courtesy of United Nations Association in Canada)

Terry Lavender

Author legacy

Terry Lavender

Topic

Global Lens

United Nations

Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy

Rotman School of Management

Global

International

Graduate Students

The hopes of many people that the United Nations would choose a woman to replace Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon were dashed last week when former Portuguese president Antonio Guterres was named his successor. One of the most vocal proponents of choosing a woman has been Mieka Buckley-Pearson, a joint Master of Global Affairs/ Master of Business Administration student at the �ؿ�ζSM and a former secretary-general of the Canadian International Model UN.

In a column published in newspapers throughout Canada, she said a female secretary-general would inspire the world. U of T News spoke to Buckley-Pearson about the importance of having women in top roles at the United Nations and elsewhere.

How did you feel about the acclamation of Guterres as secretary-general?

While I have no doubt that Antonio Guterres is well qualified and will be a capable UN secretary-general, I am disappointed that the Security Council did not elect a woman [the secretary-general is formally appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council]. There were several highly qualified female candidates to choose from, but this is a political process where qualifications are not the only consideration. Electing the first female UN secretary-general would have had a profound effect; it would have been a demonstration of the UN’s commitment to gender equality and the centrality of female empowerment in the international community’s development agenda.

Undoubtedly, a woman will at some point be elected as UN secretary-general, perhaps in 10 years, perhaps in 20. In the meantime, there are countless leadership positions around the world that will need to be filled. Why not start by promoting more women to these critical positions, such as the permanent representatives, foreign ministers, and state leaders who are represented on the UN Security Council and influence the election of the Secretary-General? A gender tally of the current group shows the drastic imbalance between men and women in these key political positions.

Why is it important for women to be global leaders?

Female leadership in both the public and private sectors is important for two key reasons: women’s inclusion is critical to global sustainable development and economic prosperity; and female leadership will lead to the greater empowerment of women.

When women are in positions of leadership and decision-making, they can demand accountability and action on issues that disproportionately affect women, such as environmental degradation and poverty. The advancement of women in society can only benefit the world. Last year the McKinsey Global Institute noted that, if women participated in the economy identically to men, an additional $28 trillion would be added to global GDP by 2025.

This isn’t to say that male leaders cannot have a positive influence on female empowerment and inclusion. There are many male champions and their efforts are also critical to achieving gender equality. It is also not to say that all women are inherently better qualified than men to advance women’s empowerment. However, we cannot ignore the importance of symbolism – how seeing women in global leadership positions inspires and gives voice to other women, and the men that support them.

Would the US electing Hillary Clinton make a difference?

Electing the first female president of the United States, similarly to electing the first female UN Secretary-General, would have a significant impact on the world, primarily for the reasons already mentioned.

You yourself have served as secretary-general at the Canadian International Model UN. What was that experience like?

Model UN is an incredible learning experience. It challenges participants to see the world’s most pressing issues through the lens of another country, through the lens of a leader and a diplomat. It develops critical-thinking and problem-solving capabilities, as well as debate and negotiation skills. Having the opportunity to lead a Model UN as secretary-general is a deeply enriching experience, because you have the privilege and responsibility to shape and contribute to the personal development and experiences of the participants.

In my role as programme manager, education & youth, at the United Nations Association in Canada, I was privileged to develop and implement several educational programs including the Model UN. The richest part of the experience was always witnessing the transformational change of many participants, from shy and nervous delegates to those who had found their voice and confidently collaborated with others to develop innovative solutions to pressing global challenges.

It was always critical for us as an organization to deliver a Model UN experience that was as realistic as possible, except for in one aspect: we had equal participation from both women and men. While you may not see this in the UN General Assembly in New York, our conference rooms in Ottawa had women and men working collaboratively on the world’s most complex problems.

Tell us a little about your background.

I grew up in both Ottawa and Vancouver, ultimately pursuing my undergraduate studies at the University of British Columbia.

As an undergraduate I spent two months as a community development intern in Swaziland, where I was confronted with the devastating impact of poor public leadership. As the king builds another palace for another wife, nearly 70 per cent of his citizens live below the poverty line. The majority of these citizens are children under the age of 14. I was struck by the lack of leadership and solution-seeking from not only national policy-makers, but also from the private and non-profit sectors.

My experience in Swaziland drove me to pursue opportunities for advancing my leadership ability in developing bold solutions to complex problems, ultimately bringing me to the �ؿ�ζSM.

Throughout my life I have sought to make a global impact. I have become convinced that innovative, sustainable solutions require an inclusive and collaborative approach integrating the strategies of government, industry and civil society. With that in mind, I have spent the past two years studying at the Munk and Rotman Schools to develop the skills and knowledge required to lead in the development of integrative solutions and bold policy action, particularly in the field of sustainable energy.

What are your plans for the future?

Since beginning the MGA/ MBA program in September 2014, I have become focused on advancing access to sustainable and affordable energy at home and abroad. As a graduate student at the �ؿ�ζSM, I have had the opportunity to work with teams from both the MaRS Advanced Energy Centre and KPMG’s Global Infrastructure Advisory. Upon graduation I intend to continue my career at KPMG, where I will have the opportunity to pursue my passion for renewable energy through advising clients, both investors and organizations, as they seek to invest in alternative energy infrastructure worldwide. I am passionate about advancing the adoption of renewable energy technologies into global markets, and delivering affordable access to energy for all. In the long-term it is my intention to return to the public sector, and perhaps politics, to continue delivering both social and economic benefits to society and business.