Canadian Multiculturalism Day – June 27

CNDMULTI

By Amit Deo

Early 1980s: I’m at my father’s side in a large superstore’s pharmacy. We have just come from the emergency room. In the car, my mother is running an alarmingly high fever, awaiting the prescription to pull her back from acute danger. Frustrated and rather demandingly, my father asks the pharmacist who made an error in preparing my mother’s prescription to quickly remake the batch. The man in line behind us grows impatient. Assuming the mistake was ours and not realizing the urgency in this, he starts berating my father.

“Hurry the fuck up, you fucking Paki!”

Unbeknownst to him, my father doesn’t back down from confrontation easily, or rather, at all. This conversation is then, as they say, “taken outside”. In the parking lot, my father and this man verbally collide. The man screams a stream of obscenities and other classic slanders.

“You don’t even belong here. Go back to your own fucking country!”

My father, at this point, is basically looking for an opening to use his fists rather than his words. My poor mother, leaning out of the car window, is barely lucid and sobbing – but she musters the energy to tell my father to get back into the car.

As an eight year old boy at the time, I was standing on the curb, nervous and confused, crying my eyes out. Innocently though, as an undercurrent of thought, wondered if the word “Paki” had something to do with Pac Man – which I loved – but simply out of context, figured it did not.

Fast-forward to 2014: I’m at a crowded Thai restaurant with friends; the place is filled with people from all ethnic backgrounds. I can hear the waitress taking the order of the table next to us. Everyone at the table is an ethnic minority. The server, racially visible herself, finishes her task and leaves. The table then starts poking fun at the server; they are being very judgemental and critical. They mock her accent and her ethnicity. They don’t hesitate to make many negative assumptions about a woman they have never met before.

The first example I shared with you is a rather typical experience that I’m sure many racially visible people have faced; being criticized by another who’s not part of the minority. This is, and was, not uncommon, especially in years past and in rural communities. In my second example, we have different ethnic minority groups, one being critical of the other. Both groups are equally Canadian; both, I’m sure, experienced similar struggles in this country and yearn for a better a life.

Canada embraced a multiculturalism policy in 1971; it was a huge victory in the movement towards equality. Yet, as American philosopher John Dewey once said, “Arriving at one goal is the starting point to another”.

Many of us may see ourselves as equal, yet choose to not view others as equal to us. Canadians may have a hard time defining our national identity, but at the core, we are just that: Canadians.

Whether our origins are found in France, Poland, India or Japan, we ultimately found our way here for the betterment of ourselves, our families and our future generations. That is what we have in common, and what we know can be achieved in our country. Retaining our mother cultures is difficult, but vitally important. Equally important, however, is accepting and adopting the culture and identity of the country we live in. Being a citizen of this country gives us equal rights, but also demands equal responsibility.

Multiculturalism in Canada does not just mean accepting other cultures, races, and religions – it means accepting each of them as equal to our own. Multiculturalism isn’t just about sharing our foods and traditions with each other. It’s about standing together for equality. Canada is not a country that yields to intolerance, yet injustices still occur and many still choose to ignore that they do.

However subtle or blatant, discrimination is a common occurrence. We read headlines on a daily basis that  report on the state of countries where similar ethnic groups are at war with each other, intolerant of each other; Ukraine, Sudan, Korea, Libya. As diverse Canadians, we have to set the standard. We are no better if we cannot accept each other as one.

Our differences are what make us stronger.

Our acceptance of each other should be the model to be mirrored by other countries.

Through acceptance, not judgement, we achieve wholeness. Multiculturalism is equality.

Diversity is continually rising in Canada. We are at a verge of either being a country that treats one another with respect and dignity, or one that keeps ourselves guarded with our differences at arm’s length: pockets of groups not willing to share or let each other in. We should feel like we can walk into any place in this country. Whether that be the newest trendy steak house, or the little hole in the wall Chinese noodle restaurant.

We should not feel judged solely based on how we look. We may not have to agree on everything, but we have to accept and respect one another. Wouldn’t you agree? Well, maybe we can discuss this further over some dim sum. Join me?

Amit Deo is the alternate to the UNE’s national equity representative for racially visible people. If you’d like to take him up on the dim sum, you’ll have to meet him in Coquitlam, British Columbia where he is also the local president of composite Local 20088.

[Editor’s note: There are many schools of thought when it comes to including profanity in articles. The Canadian Press Stylebook points out that “profanity that is used for its own sake does not enlighten a reader” – and we absolutely agree. However, it also states that there are exceptions: “a profanity might be essential to an accurate understanding of the facts or emotions that are driving a story.” In this case, we chose to include the profanity to give readers an accurate portrayal of the vitriol that equity-seeking groups often face.]

The end of Local 00381

local00381

[Editor’s note: There was an error in the e-newsletter that pointed to this article. To be clear, it was Garry Larouche and not Gary Sparvier who attended the last meeting of Local 00381.]

During the last meeting of the executive, we unfortunately had to say goodbye to two of our Locals. In the Northwest Territories, Local X0305 saw its functions transferred to the territorial government; in Toronto, all the members of Local 00381 were laid off.

Sandy Bello, an assistant regional vice-president in Ontario, was there for Local 00381’s final meeting – a rather solemn occasion.

“The entire facility – offices and warehouse, was stripped of furnishings, records and shelving,” explained Bello. “There was a ‘for sale’ sign on the lawn, outside the front door.”

Remarking on the photographs they shot that day, Bello added, “If you think the walls are bare – they were!”

The Local was made up of Library and Archives Canada employees who were responsible for storing government records. Since the department removed that function from its mandate, four regional records centres were nixed.

“The decision was made to shut down the centres that don’t have archival offices attached to them,” explained Andy Yung, an assistant regional vice-president in British Columbia. “Library and Archives doesn’t consider records with no archival value worth keeping.”

In the past, all government publications and documents were stored by Library and Archives Canada. The government’s policy will likely lead to a decrease in transparency, since there’s a risk that important documents that shaped Canadian history will be lost forever.

Since each department will be responsible for housing their own dormant records,   researchers will undoubtedly see their work become more difficult. The Canadian public is already grappling with less access to our heritage; and there are fewer services being provided by the department.

If you think these changes are being made in the name of saving taxpayers money, you’d be wrong. Most functions have been contracted out to a private company; we’re paying more for less access.

It’s these changes that led to about 15 members in Toronto having to find work elsewhere in the federal government or retire. Among these members was Jerome Varney, who had been president of his Local for over 25 years.

During the meeting, Varney was presented with a certificate of appreciation and a UNE hoodie. Joyce Hendy, a UNE life member and a recipient of our human rights award, and Garry Larouche, regional vice-president, were also in attendance.

Local 00381 was officially dissolved during our recent national executive meeting. The motion was put forward by Regional Vice-President Garry Larouche, who provided some background about the members who were affected.

“The members of that Local did their job well and they were very proud of the work they did,” said Larouche.

Remarking on the final meeting, the regional vice-president characterised it as being “a very sad day – an emotional day.”

Photos of the last meeting of Local 00381 are on our Flickr page.

 

 

Mmmm! Tastes like hypocrisy!

mmm_hypocrisy

The Union of National Employees is joining the Public Service Alliance of Canada in urging its members to boycott National Public Service Week.

Yes, it’s that time of year again; when the government that’s always throwing you under a bus to score political points tries to thank you for providing public services. Well, thanks but no thanks. Your ice cream tastes a little too much like hypocrisy.

If you’ll recall, on the eve of last year’s public service week, Tony Clement dropped a big flaming bag of poo on our doorstep when he announced he was coming after our sick leave.

This year, Treasury Board is celebrating National Public Service Week under the banner of “Proudly Serving Canadians”.

Let’s keep it real: our members are proud of the work they do. Yes, they proudly serve Canadians – and they do it day in and day out. That should be the message that our employer conveys to the public every day of the year. Instead, it spends 51 weeks of the year maligning its workers, accusing them of fraudulently using sick leave and being lazy.

What’s really happening on the ground? Our members continue to proudly serve Canadians, but they’re doing it with fewer resources and less support – all while the Conservatives continue to cut program after program.

Canadians are being cheated of quality public services – and our members know it.

So forgive us if we say “Thanks, but no thanks” to the burgers, hot-dogs, ice cream and insincere speeches. Actions speak louder than words; and the employer’s actions have been saying plenty!

A well-deserved retirement

jp_ret_e

Written by Julie Dubois

When the sky gets dark, and your worries weigh you down, there is always someone close by to help you. This person who crossed my path, this dependable man who is a constant source of support taught me how to keep my head up high. Jean-Pierre Naud contributed countless hours to our workers’ organization. He made a distinct impact on the Quebec region, following in the significant footsteps of his predecessor Bernard Labonté, who was named a lifetime member of our union. He easily filled the shoes of this great man. Retirement smiled upon this accessible and generous man.

The regional executive had the honour of celebrating his contributions at a dinner on June 6 at the restaurant St-Bernard near Mont Ste-Anne.

I have no doubt that my union brothers and sisters will join me in wishing him the best for this next great adventure. Thank you for everything, Brother Naud!

Happy retirement – you’ve earned it!

JP_NAUD

If you’d like to see more pictures from the evening, check out our Flickr page.

Julie Dubois is Regional Assistant Vice-President for the Quebec Region. She is also one of our union’s youth members. This article was written as part of the UNE’s Member Journalism program. To learn more, click here. To submit a proposal for an article, or if you have questions, please send an email to communications@une-sen.org.

National Executive Meeting Wrap-Up

nat_exec_jan2014

The National Executive met recently, in a meeting that was largely dominated by convention preparations. And it’s no wonder; with convention only a few months away, you’ll be waking up in beautiful British Columbia before you know it (albeit, a bit jet-lagged)!

The highlight of the meeting was the announcement that our UNE family won’t be split apart. As reported in an earlier article, Pɑssport Canada members will be staying with the UNE.

The meeting was also a great opportunity to extend our thanks to Garry Larouche, who announced that he will be retiring sometime after convention. Garry has been involved with our union since 1977 and was a powerful voice on many TC-group bargaining teams.

Andy Yung was also thanked for his service to our union, as he will be taking a hiatus from his assistant regional vice-president position during the next mandate. Andy was given kudos for his talents with numbers and his skills with hospitality suites.

After the conclusion of the National Executive meeting, it was off to the races! …the race to tackle convention resolutions, that is. There were three convention committees charged with examining all the resolutions that will be presented at convention.

All in all, there were over 60 resolutions submitted to convention. Members will be able to peruse these resolutions shortly, once we put the finishing touches on each committee’s report.

execphoto
A group photo taken during the national executive

 

 

Pɑssport members to stay with UNE

passport_news

During the recent national executive meeting, National President Doug Marshall announced that our union was now in a position to assure our members at Pɑssport Canada that they would indeed stay with the Union of National Employees.

Our members in many Pɑssport locals were worried that the recent dissolution of their agency would see them going to another component within the Public Service Alliance of Canada (jargon explanation: “components” are unions within the Public Service Alliance of Canada – there are 17 of them, of which the UNE is the second largest).

When the news was announced at the national executive meeting, the room burst into applause. The reaction was very similar during an Outside Canada caucus meeting held last Friday.

“Doug was invited as a guest to our caucus meeting; that’s when he announced that it was definitive – that we were staying with the UNE,” explained Assistant Regional Vice-President Karl Lafrenière.

“Everyone applauded.”

Lafrenière is quick to credit this victory to National President Doug Marshall, who he said led the charge to keep his members.

To say that Pɑssport members are passionate about their spot in the UNE would be an understatement. While things were still uncertain, they did what they could to keep sporting our colours.

The UNE received one resolution asking that Pɑssport Canada members be allowed to vote on which component should represent them. Given that this is no longer required, the resolution was ruled out of order and won’t make it to convention floor.

There was also a petition, started at the grassroots level, which circulated among the membership and obtained the signature of a majority of all Pɑssport members. The individuals who wrote the petition were about to present it to PSAC President Robyn Benson, but the news that they weren’t changing components came first!

When asked why he thought his members were so fervently trying to stay part UNE, Lafrenière said it all comes down to service.

“Most of the people we talk with say the service is excellent. When we call for help, we get help. When we call with questions, we get answers,” said Lafrenière, who represents more than 900 Pɑssport members in his role as assistant regional vice-president. “The representation we get is excellent.”

For his part, National President Doug Marshall says the effort to keep Pɑssport members within the UNE was a group effort, supported by the national executive, local members and staff.

“For the UNE, it wasn’t just about a loss of membership,” explained National President Doug Marshall. “Had we lost our Pɑssport members, we would have lost some really strong leaders who are involved at all levels of our union – leaders who make our union strong.”

 

You too can be a leader!

leader_web

As convention approaches, many members will be gearing up to run for some of our national and regional positions. It’s thanks to dedicated union members at all levels that we’re able to accomplish the important work we do on behalf of our membership.

Whether or not you attend convention, you can run for elected office. On voting day, we will be voting for the following positions:

  • National president
  • National executive vice-president
  • National vice-president for human rights
  • Assistant national vice-president for human rights
  • Regional vice-presidents
  • Assistant regional vice-presidents
  • Regional human rights representatives
  • Alternate regional human rights representatives
  • Delegates and alternates to the PSAC convention

Any member in good standing can run for these positions, as long as their candidacy is supported by a nominator and seconder who are delegates to convention. Those interested in throwing their hats into the ring should carefully read the nomination letter sent earlier today. You can download the nomination form by clicking here.

Additionally, anyone running for elected office should carefully review our policy Fin 9, which provides all the important details about campaign spending limits and ethical considerations. All candidates must provide a written report of all expenses, even if no expenses are incurred.

Finally, if you’re a delegate to convention, you should be aware that delegates may contact you to support their candidacy – after all, we believe in making informed decisions! Our policies allow for candidates to obtain the personal contact information of delegates who are eligible to vote for the position for which they are seeking office.
This information includes names, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses. Candidates may only use this information to communicate with delegates about their candidacy. They must safeguard all personal contact information as required by our privacy policies.

Duty to accommodate and medical marijuana

dta_mari

The duty-to-accommodate doesn’t make the news very often, but it did last week in an Ottawa Citizen article examining whether the use of medical marijuana could force the return of smoking rooms.

“In an era of smoking bans on patios, parks and restaurants, the notion may seem absurd, but those relying on marijuana to ease chronic pain and other conditions may soon be demanding accommodation for their medically prescribed and commercially grown medication.”

Medical marijuana use has been on the rise since it was first legalized in 2001. In just over a decade, the number of Canadians authorized to possess medical marijuana has jumped from 477 in 2002 to 37,359 in 2013. Health Canada projects the number to rise to 58,000 in 2014 and skyrocket to 450,000 in another ten years.

It’s no wonder some labour experts are predicting that this will become a big issue – one that is already sparking debate.

Last year, an RCMP officer made headlines when his employer told him he couldn’t smoke his legally prescribed marijuana while in uniform. The officer has been using the drug to help him calm down and treat his PTSD symptoms.

The RCMP felt that smoking in public or while in uniform would “not portray the right message to the general public.”

The use of medical marijuana poses a complex issue for employers, who have to grapple with the duty to accommodate on one side; public perception and health and safety on the other.

Given its long history of being a controlled substance, users of medical marijuana have to combat a certain level of stigma associated with the drug. The Canadian Association of Medical Cannabis Dispensaries hopes that discussions like these will help shift the public perception of marijuana from illicit drug to medicine.

On the health and safety front, some employers may be concerned about a person’s ability to safety and effectively perform their work while taking the drug. It’s important that these employees are not endangering their safety or that of others. In the future, it may be possible for patients to obtain “designer marijuana”; strains of the drug designed to treat specific symptoms without affecting cognitive and motor skills.

But these issues don’t negate the employer’s duty to accommodate these individuals to the point of undue hardship. Fundamentally, these are people who are merely treating a disability.

So, will the duty to accommodate lead to smoking rooms? It could: the cost of establishing a smoking room doesn’t constitute undue hardship. In other cases, a person’s accommodation needs could easily be addressed by simply offering more frequent breaks.

In an article for Occupational Safety Canada, Cheryl Edwards offers a few tips for employers. Among them, she suggests working “with the employee, his union representative and medical professionals to determine what checks and balances will need to be in place to ensure the employee, co-workers, the public and the environment are properly safeguarded.”

Finally, she recommends not getting distracted by the drug causing the impairment, but to focus on the issue of impairment instead.

“Treat this source the same as you would any other prescription drug.”

June: National Aboriginal History Month

natabmonth

In 1939, thirteen Native people participating in a conference on First Nation welfare took a bold stand. While other delegates busied themselves passing resolutions urging greater attention to the plight of aboriginal communities, the Indian delegation defected to pass a resolution of their own.

The Toronto-Yale Conference on the North American Indian seemed very well-intentioned. Over seventy delegates participated in the two-week affair. Among them were Canadian and American academics, missionaries and government officials.1 Thirteen Native people were invited, among them an Iroquois anthropologist, a Cherokee missionary, a Haida United Church minister and a Six Nations lawyer. The Indian delegation also included Edith Brant Monture; the great-great-granddaughter of famous Iroquois Chief Joseph Brant.2

The conference was designed “to reveal the conditions today of the white man’s Indian wards, and in a scientific, objective and sympathetic spirit, plan with them for their future.” 3

For all of its good intensions, the non-aboriginal conference participants assumed that assimilation was both beneficial and inevitable.

“The guiding belief was that the Indian peoples were to be the recipients of change, not the choosers. In standard colonial parlance, they were variously described as wards or children. It was, however, colonialism with a difference, for the goal was not independence, but disappearance.”4

Since assimilation was viewed as inevitable, the only debates centered on how fast it should happen.

The crackpot ideas machine went into overdrive when Diamond Jenness, a Canadian anthropologist, suggested establishing small colonies of Inuit around major Canadian cities. Because, you know, who wants to live in the North? The anthropologist believed that the Inuit would be better off learning English and marketable skills in southern Canada rather than inevitably becoming unemployed, welfare-dependant and demoralized in the North.5

On the last day of the conference, a resolution was passed calling for greater awareness of “the psychological, social and economic maladjustments of the Indian populations of the United States and Canada.” Then a committee was formed to determine how the conference’s findings should be disseminated. 6

“And then a very dramatic defection took place. The Indian delegates broke from the main group and met separately to pass their own resolutions. […]

While appreciative of their invitation to the conference, the Indians resolved to have their own meetings. They didn’t need government officials, missionaries [or] white sympathizers […] to speak for them.”7

The Native delegates called for an “all-Indian conference on Indian affairs,” comprising of only “bona fide Indian leaders actually living among the Indian people of the reservations and reserves”. Such a conference, they implored, ought to be “free of political, anthropological, missionary, administrative, or other domination.”8

Their bold move, their call to action and the conference overall went largely unnoticed; by the time the event was over, Canada was already one week into its World War 2.


[1] Francis, R. D., & Jones, R. (1988). Destinies: Canadian history since Confederation. Toronto: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston of Canada.

[2] A Cassidy, F. (1991). Aboriginal self-determination: proceedings of a conference held September 30-October 3, 1990. Lantzville, BC: Oolichan Books.

[3] Francis, R. D., & Jones, R. (1988). Destinies: Canadian history since Confederation. Toronto: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston of Canada.

[4] Cairns, A. (2000). Citizens plus: aboriginal peoples and the Canadian state. Vancouver: UBC Press.

[5] Idem

[6] Francis, R. D., & Jones, R. (1988). Destinies: Canadian history since Confederation. Toronto: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston of Canada.

[7] Cassidy, F. (1991). Aboriginal self-determination: proceedings of a conference held September 30-October 3, 1990. Lantzville, BC: Oolichan Books.

[8] Francis, R. D., & Jones, R. (1988). Destinies: Canadian history since Confederation. Toronto: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston of Canada.

Members in the dark: ACOA not providing answers

acoa

On Monday, National President Doug Marshall took part in teleconference call with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. The Union of National Employees is concerned about its members at Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation who are expected to be transferred to ACOA by the end of June.

Our concerns weren’t abated; ACOA didn’t provide any information about the transfer. ACOA President Paul LeBlanc didn’t volunteer any details beyond the fact that the agency was “working on the transfer.”

“A transfer like this one is incredibly complex,” said Marshall. “There are 33 members there who are transferring from an outside organization to the core public service. Our members have important questions; I find it baffling that ACOA won’t consult with us on issues important to our members.”

This isn’t the first time that the UNE has faced a situation like this. Last year, 60 members at the National Capital Commission were kept in the dark about their salary until the day before their transfer to Canadian Heritage. Needless to say, it caused a lot of problems and scores of grievances that are still not resolved.

The UNE wants to ensure that our members’ concerns are addressed and their questions answered. We are calling on ACOA to work with us and to communicate openly with its employees.

After the teleconference’s conclusion, a disappointed Marshall wrote a letter to Local President Gerard McPhee, of Local 84200 (Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation) to inform him of ACOA’s immovable stance.

You can read the letter by clicking here