where to buy ativan without persription how long ativan before you get addicted online pharmacy no prescription ativan search prescription drugs ativan xanax ativan canada drugs no prescription ativan non prescription ativan how long does it take for ativan to get ativan without prescription how to get off ativan with beta blocker 1 mg of ativan per day for pelvic floor cheap ativan buy online no prescription buy ativan online without a prescription ativan mg ativan uk rx ativan ativan usa ativan buy buy ativan ativan 2 mg ativan 1 mg ativan 5 mg buy ativan without prescription ativan price price ativan ativan no rx ativan india ativan discount order ativan drugs no prescription ativan ativan discount no script ativan ativan without a prescription ativan tabs 1 mg ativan prescription cardiac condition ativan india overnight ativan buy ativan online side effects ativan 1 mg ativan uk order ativan online ativan suppliers uk ativan cheap ritalin ativan no rx price ativan ativan giant eagle rx how to get off ativan taking 2 mg of ativan ativan suppliers uk buy ativan online without a prescription purchase ativan online ativan no prescription prescription drugs europe ativan xanax sams club ativan price brand ativan overnight is ativan available uk buy medication ativan c ativan usa side effects ativan 1 mg ativan prescription drug uk pharmacy online ativan how to get high on ativan is ativan available in uk rx ativan ativan 5 mg identification no script 2mg ativan price buy ativan no prescription ativan suppliers uk ativan prescription does ativan come i a 20 mg tablet cheap ativan generic no prescription 5 mg of ativan equals how much valium drugs no prescription ativan street value for ativan 1 mg how long does it take for ativan to get ativan canada pill identifier 1 mg of ativan per day for pfd prescription drugs ativan xanax uk pharmacy online ativan

Ryerson’s Highest Rollers

January 18, 2010 by admin · Leave a Comment 

Every year, the Government of Ontario publishes university staff whose salary exceeds $100,000. Below is the list of Ryerson’s highest paid staff, and the highest salaries are in bold.

RONA   ABRAMOVITCH    Advisor, Outreach & Access      $100,434.45
SANDEEP  AGRAWAL     Associate Professor     $121,021.38
MEHRUNNISA  ALI     Associate Professor     $108,809.32
HEKMAT  ALIGHANBARI     Associate Professor     $105,258.04
JAVAD  ALIREZAIE     Associate Professor     $104,635.63
ASHER  ALKOBY     Assistant Professor     $136,538.88
LARISSA  ALLEN     Executive Director, Human Resources $204,746.43
KEITH  ALNWICK     Registrar     $164,126.58
LAWRENCE  ALTROWS     Professor     $135,103.96
MANUEL  ALVAREZ-CUENCA     Associate Professor     $122,806.69
DAVID  AMBORSKI     Professor     $137,333.40
LAMYA  AMLEH     Associate Professor     $120,643.92
ALEXANDRA  ANDERSON     Associate Professor     $101,593.12
D. SCOTT  ANDERSON     Associate Professor     $170,570.72
DIMITRIOS  ANDROUTSOS     Associate Professor     $126,856.71
ALAGAN  ANPALAGAN     Associate Professor     $119,279.63
MERCY  ANSELM     Instructor     $130,855.63
LARRY  ANTA     Senior Programmer/Analyst, UNIX     $108,023.70
MARTIN  ANTONY     Professor     $140,442.56
SEDEF  ARAT-KOC     Associate Professor     $120,276.51
ERROL  ASPEVIG     Professor $212,101.28
MALEK  ATAY     Professor     $128,008.96
LESLIE  ATKINSON     Professor     $136,753.12
CHRISTOPHER  AYLWARD     Associate Professor     $138,558.28
RON  BABIN     Director     $131,631.58
KIRK  BAILEY     Professor     $144,767.16
ROBERT  BAKER     Executive Director, Development     $103,765.47
DOUGLAS  BANTING     Professor     $132,971.72
MARSHA  BARBER     Associate Professor     $124,389.91
THOMAS  BARBIERO     Professor     $119,218.97
SUSAN  BARNWELL     Professor     $131,107.56
LUISA  BARTON     Regional Co-ordinator, Nurse Practitioner Program     $131,812.64
SAHRI  BAUM     Counsellor     $104,951.26
HEATHER  BEANLANDS     Associate Professor     $118,993.09
KAMRAN  BEHDINAN     Chair, Aerospace Engineering     $157,854.15
AKUA  BENJAMIN     Professor     $126,780.34
IDA  BERGER     Professor     $115,038.72
JUDITH  BERNHARD     Professor     $110,248.71
SANJIWAN  BHOLE     Professor     $143,178.56
GEORGE  BIELMEIER     Professor     $129,996.28
ELIZABETH  BISHOP     Senior Librarian     $118,766.78
EDWARD  BLINDER     Instructor     $111,207.02
STALIN  BOCTOR     Dean $206,957.15
FERNANDO  BONILLA     Manager, Information Technology Security     $111,140.23
J. PAUL  BOUDREAU     Chair, Psychology     $134,800.12
MARTA  BRAUN     Professor     $145,274.08
DIANA  BRECHER     Counsellor     $101,385.16
MANFRED  BREEDE     Professor     $121,298.12
ANNE-MARIE  BRINSMEAD     Associate Program Director, Arts     $100,496.98
JUDITH  BRITNELL     Professor     $139,217.11
JULIE  BROWN     Director, Development     $108,050.34
MARGARET  BUCKBY     Professor     $126,457.37
RICHARD  BUDNY     Professor     $121,005.32
MIKE  BURKE     Associate Professor     $111,038.88
TARA  BURKE     Associate Professor     $110,137.60
ROBERT  BURLEY     Assistant Professor     $113,027.80
JENNIFER LIS  BURWELL     Associate Professor     $105,455.00
JUN  CAO     Associate Professor     $100,808.64
DALE  CARL     Associate Professor     $115,522.52
ELIZABETH  CARLSON     Assistant Professor     $108,069.68
MARIA  CARVALHO     Professor     $116,640.28
AMY  CASEY     Special Assistant, Provost/Vice President, Academic     $140,599.12
CARLA  CASSIDY     Dean     $188,121.88
BARBARA  CECCHETTO     Assistant Registrar     $113,339.05
CHUCK  CHAKRAPANI     Senior Research Fellow     $125,442.29
ANTHONY M. Y  CHAN     Professor     $141,835.24
PHILIP  CHAN     Associate Dean     $145,828.16
VINCENT  CHAN     Associate Professor     $107,101.33
DEBORAH  CHANT     Professor     $138,299.34
MICHAEL  CHAPMAN     Professor     $133,661.37
JANET  CHAPPELL     Director     $141,268.35
CAROLE  CHAUNCEY     Professor     $118,350.84
DAVID  CHECKLAND     Associate Professor     $102,554.64
DAOLUN  CHEN     Professor     $127,123.19
YANG  CHEN     Senior Distributed Systems Specialist     $103,542.29
YAO-CHON  CHEN     Professor     $114,954.24
MELINDA  CHENG     Project Director, HRMS Implementation     $111,424.17
OPHELIA  CHEUNG     Senior Librarian     $101,975.80
RICHARD  CHEUNG     Professor     $122,653.33
TIMOTHY  CHIU     Manager, Accounting & Treasury     $112,868.17
ALICE  CHU     Professor     $141,918.68
CLARE  CHUA-CHOW     Associate Professor     $131,297.20
JOON  CHUNG     Associate Professor     $103,033.80
KATHRYN  CHURCH     Associate Professor     $100,876.57
BRIAN  CLARENCE     Professor     $123,939.55
COLEEN  CLARK     Assistant Professor     $130,648.58
SCOTT  CLARKE     Chief Internal Auditor     $135,725.55
KENNETH  CLOWES     Professor     $121,168.04
SUSAN  CODY     Associate Professor     $142,184.04
MARIANELLA  COLLETTE     Associate Professor     $104,548.40
MARION  COOMEY     Associate Professor     $109,599.24
LINDA  COOPER     Professor     $137,715.92
PHILIP  COPPACK     Associate Dean     $134,485.36
JOHN  CORALLO     Director, Ancillary Services     $158,050.16
PATRICIA  CORSON     Associate Professor     $113,303.53
MARION  CREERY     Director, Student Services     $169,233.74
WENDY  CUKIER     Associate Dean     $184,459.26
WACLAW  DAJNOWIEC     Senior Research Associate     $123,595.98
BRIAN  DAMUDE     Professor     $117,188.24
PETER  DANZIGER     Associate Professor     $108,579.68
CHARLES  DAVIS     Professor     $139,686.56
DAVID  DAY     Associate Professor     $106,012.48
NELLIE  DE LORENZI     Associate Director, Consulting & Client Services     $123,827.87
LUCIA  DELL’AGNESE     Professor     $112,672.01
MELANIE  DEMPSEY     Associate Professor     $115,183.20
DENNIS  DENISOFF     Associate Professor     $112,856.29
YOUCEF  DERBAL     Assistant Professor     $113,473.37
MICHAEL R. J  DEWSON     Vice Provost, Faculty Affairs $217,178.18
RAMDHANE  DHIB     Associate Professor     $104,168.39
JAMES  DIANDA     Professor     $121,495.60
JUDITH  DIMITRIU     Professor     $125,233.92
CHEN  DING     Assistant Professor     $101,260.76
MICHELLE  DIONNE     Associate Professor     $102,075.82
ROBERT  DIRSTEIN     Director, Office of Research Services     $115,480.34
HUU  DOAN     Associate Professor     $122,931.19
KATHLEEN  DODDRIDGE     Manager, Centre for the Study of Commercial Activity     $112,605.07
FAITH  DONALD     Associate Professor     $117,463.05
LINYING  DONG     Assistant Professor     $105,022.35
HITESH  DOSHI     Professor     $130,764.68
MICHAEL  DOUCET     Professor     $131,542.62
DANIEL  DOZ     Dean     $177,957.53
GAIL  DUFFUS     Director, Administration     $104,011.51
KAREN  DUPLISEA     Associate Professor     $103,750.25
DAVID  DUSSELDORP     Manager, Database Administration     $110,095.66
CHERYL  DYSON     Instructor     $123,421.71
SAID  EASA     Professor     $147,489.57
FARHAD  EIN-MOZAFFARI     Associate Professor     $106,998.54
BRUCE  ELDER     Professor     $156,722.02
GREG  ELMER     Associate Professor     $118,265.12
AHMED  EL-RABBANY     Professor     $105,240.28
SHERRY  ESPIN     Associate Professor     $116,663.88
MARIA  ETKIND     Professor     $115,394.52
CHRISTOPHER  EVANS     Associate Dean     $134,669.40
ELIZABETH  EVANS     Director     $128,868.20
RICK  EVERATT     Senior Network Specialist     $104,337.10
LIPING  FANG     Chair, Mechanical Engineering     $136,458.16
CARLYLE  FARRELL     Chair, Global Management Studies     $134,045.72
GENEVIEVE  FARRELL     Instructor     $112,133.87
ZOUHEIR  FAWAZ     Professor     $171,797.46
DEBORAH  FELS     Associate Professor     $121,681.54
TAMAR  FERNANDES     Manager, Human Resources Services     $116,472.76
XAVIER  FERNANDO     Associate Professor     $113,529.95
SEBASTIAN  FERRANDO     Chair, Math     $115,963.52
ALEXANDER  FERWORN     Associate Professor     $121,712.01
CAROL  FINE     Professor     $114,792.40
BLAKE  FITZPATRICK     Professor     $125,748.61
GABOR  FORGACS     Assistant Professor     $105,751.68
TYLER  FORKES     Executive Director, Alumni Relations     $140,764.93
BRADLEY  FORTNER     Program Director     $115,356.54
DEBORA  FOSTER     Professor     $128,143.28
MARY  FOSTER     Chair, Marketing     $159,550.30
VALERIE  FOX     Director     $173,600.03
ELAINE  FRANKEL     Professor     $127,509.76
JACOB  FRIEDMAN     Associate Professor     $111,834.72
LARRY  FULLERTON     Professor     $131,277.72
ALAN  FUNG     Associate Professor     $103,310.44
IRENE  GAMMEL     Professor     $145,580.67
ROBERTA  GARCIA     Director, Development     $107,135.62
STEVEN  GEDEON     Assistant Professor     $106,712.02
PETER  GEE     Assistant Director, Financial Services     $142,181.06
GEORGE  GEKAS     Associate Professor     $145,358.36
NOEL  GEORGE     Associate Professor     $102,183.28
PURNIMA  GEORGE     Associate Professor     $107,583.38
USHA  GEORGE     Dean     $185,829.32
VADIM  GEURKOV     Associate Professor     $109,479.00
AHMAD  GHASEMPOOR     Associate Professor     $123,379.70
KIMBERLEY  GILBRIDE     Professor     $127,756.41
SUZETTE  GILES     Senior Librarian     $106,687.84
CHARLES  GILLIN     Chair, Sociology     $144,894.16
DESMOND  GLYNN     Program Director     $127,092.90
JEAN  GOLDEN     Professor     $153,550.48
PEDRO  GOLDMAN     Chair, Physics     $155,320.23
KATHRYN  GOODING     Manager, Human Resources Consulting     $113,243.30
ABBY  GOODRUM     Associate Professor     $120,744.72
RYBURN  GOODYEAR     Professor     $131,660.64
MARK  GORGOLEWSKI     Professor     $129,251.81
ALLEN  GOSS     Assistant Professor     $131,171.27
CHRISTOPHER  GRANDISON     Professor     $110,757.72
DIANE  GRANFIELD     Senior Librarian     $108,782.83
CANDACE  GRANT     Faculty     $102,047.04
KEN  GRANT     Associate Professor     $168,892.10
LINDA  GRAYSON     Vice President, Administration & Finance     $253,946.66
DAVID  GREATRIX     Associate Professor     $116,451.06
DEBORAH  GREENFIELD FINDLAY     Director, Development     $105,712.05
XIJIA  GU     Associate Professor     $118,767.12
LING  GUAN     Professor     $180,235.24
ABDELAZIZ  GUERGACHI     Associate Professor     $107,042.78
CATHERINE  GULLO     Program Manager     $100,768.49
LOUDANSKI  GUMBS     Security Systems Administrator     $103,415.63
SEPALI  GURUGE     Associate Professor     $107,244.20
DZUNG  HA     Associate Professor     $111,990.28
CHARMAINE  HACK     Associate Registrar     $120,647.77
MURTAZA  HAIDER     Associate Professor     $127,121.24
BRANKA  HALILOVIC     Manager, Academic Services     $103,346.33
LESLIE  HALL     Associate Professor     $108,428.40
DENIS  HAMELIN     Associate Professor     $121,493.31
IAN  HAMILTON     Director, Campus Planning & Facilities     $174,363.44
KEITH  HAMPSON     Director, Distance Education     $130,030.58
JULIA  HANIGSBERG     General Counsel/Secretary, Board of Governors $210,707.34
FRANCIS  HARE     Professor     $131,931.80
ERIC  HARLEY     Assistant Professor     $110,568.04
JOHN  HARNESS     Information Systems Security Officer     $146,478.37
SANDRA  HART     Manager, Campus Recreation     $105,438.85
STACEY  HART     Associate Professor     $113,178.32
STEPHEN  HAWKINS     Director, Computing & Communications Services     $138,558.06
VIOLETTE  HENEIN     Manager, Budgets & Projects     $103,086.12
JANET  HERCZ     Director     $126,460.95
JUAN  HERNANDEZ     Director, Centre for the Study of Commercial Activity     $126,278.99
DARRICK  HEYD     Chair, Chemistry & Biology     $113,571.81
ROBERT  HUDYMA     Associate Professor     $109,279.52
GERALD  HUNT     Chair, Human Resources & Organizational Behaviour     $142,841.04
ANDREW  HUNTER     Assistant Professor     $101,711.44
DAVID  HUNTER     Associate Professor     $108,853.80
MICHAEL  HUNTER     Professor     $131,435.60
CATHERINE  HURLEY     Director     $117,653.34
ALI  HUSSEIN     Professor     $136,033.97
MICHAEL  INGLIS     Assistant Professor     $161,820.31
GREG  INWOOD     Professor     $106,789.00
WINSTON  ISAAC     Director     $114,237.29
KARIM  ISMAILI     Chair, Criminal Justice     $120,828.14
NAVA  ISRAEL     Program Manager     $112,200.43
MOHAMAD  JABER     Professor     $122,151.85
ROBERT  JACKSON     Senior Librarian     $109,215.10
A. HERSCH  JACOBS     Professor     $121,246.92
FARROKH  JANABI-SHARIFI     Associate Professor     $114,029.64
LORRAINE  JANZEN KOOISTRA     Professor     $137,955.30
MUHAMMAD  JASEEMUDDIN     Associate Professor     $116,433.00
KOUROUSH  JENAB     Assistant Professor     $101,503.60
KNUD  JENSEN     Professor     $144,998.42
CAROLYN  JOHNS     Associate Professor     $103,656.88
DAVID  JOHNSTON     Professor     $150,184.74
KENNETH  JONES     Dean     $221,259.65
BASSAM  JUBRAN     Professor     $141,609.08
ADAM  KAHAN     Vice President, University Advancement     $369,730.66
MOHANDAS  KANNOTH     Supervisor, Technical Support, Student Information Systems     $101,168.30
PAUL  KANTOREK     Professor     $127,704.88
GEORGE  KAPELOS     Associate Professor     $108,112.96
ALAN  KAPLAN     Associate Professor     $131,824.54
SHEIKH  KARIM     Professor     $127,704.88
MAHMOOD  KASSAM     Professor     $143,633.28
JOHN  KAWALL     Associate Professor     $127,167.92
ANTHONY  KAY     Manager, Student Information Systems     $110,095.66
RONALD  KEEBLE     Professor     $142,088.18
KATHLEEN  KELLETT-BETSOS     Chair, French     $121,588.48
PAULETTE  KELLY     Professor     $126,990.08
SUANNE  KELMAN     Associate Professor     $104,789.86
GERARD  KENNEDY     Professor of Distinction     $125,466.83
DIANE  KENYON     Executive Director, Marketing & Communications     $176,788.46
GUL  KHAN     Associate Professor     $126,419.86
MOHAMMED  KIANOUSH     Professor     $118,532.57
LEV  KIRISCHIAN     Associate Professor     $120,621.08
ARNE  KISLENKO     Associate Professor     $104,013.52
MARIA  KJERULF     Assistant Professor     $114,777.28
PAUL  KNOX     Chair, Journalism     $122,647.20
MUSTAFA  KOC     Associate Professor     $112,051.44
MICHAEL  KOLIOS     Associate Professor     $142,475.89
STANISLAUS  KOO     Manager     $100,526.88
MITCHELL  KOSNY     Professor     $140,841.58
SRIDHAR  KRISHNAN     Chair, Electrical Engineering     $159,964.58
WALTER  KRYSTIA     Instructor     $107,419.44
CHRIS  KULAR     Assistant Professor     $108,423.86
KRISHNA  KUMAR     Associate Professor     $120,442.40
MOHAMED  LACHEMI     Associate Dean     $160,467.43
MAXINE  LAINE     Assistant Director, Student Services     $132,259.25
KUNQUAN  LAN     Associate Professor     $150,989.91
TAMMY  LANDAU     Associate Professor     $105,814.70
RACHEL  LANGFORD     Director     $100,792.80
EDDIE K. L  LAW     Associate Professor     $113,296.80
PETER  LAWRENCE     Professor     $128,183.76
JOSEPH  LEE     Professor     $126,806.96
MARILYN  LEE     Professor     $126,867.97
MADELEINE  LEFEBVRE     Chief Librarian     $152,866.02
WEY  LEONG     Associate Professor     $104,415.56
YEW-THONG  LEONG     Associate Professor     $137,247.13
JURIJ  LESHCHYSHYN     Professor     $114,692.62
IARA  LESSA     Associate Professor     $103,597.48
BRIAN  LESSER     Assistant Director, Development & Support     $140,149.52
AVNER  LEVIN     Chair, Law     $157,131.11
IRA  LEVINE     Chair, Professional Communication     $193,379.01
SHELDON  LEVY     President     $391,217.00
SHIRLEY  LEWCHUK     Communication Coordinator, Faculty, Communication & Design     $104,153.38
JULIA  LEWIS     Director, Centre for Environmental, Health, Safety & Security     $137,270.98
JAMES  LI     Associate Professor     $128,629.76
ZAIYI  LIAO     Associate Professor     $107,289.04
PHILIP  LIM     Manager, Career Centre     $107,007.97
DER CHYAN  LIN     Associate Professor     $106,009.04
HOWARD  LIN     Professor     $124,336.12
IAN  LINDSAY     Professor     $116,329.52
SERGEI  LIPNITSKI     Audio-Visual Systems Technology     $105,315.31
NINA-MARIE  LISTER     Associate Professor     $106,391.20
GUANG JUN  LIU     Associate Professor     $131,625.29
GUOPING  LIU     Assistant Professor     $103,802.64
ALI  LOHI     Chair, Chemical Engineering     $170,410.72
JOHN  LOVE     Director     $153,274.50
HUA  LU     Professor     $124,259.20
JULIA  LU     Associate Professor     $103,621.36
GRACE  LUK     Professor     $125,601.64
PETER  LUK     Professor     $110,183.47
JANET  LUM     Associate Professor     $121,346.31
NGOK-WA  MA     Professor     $149,101.16
IAN  MACBURNIE     Associate Professor     $103,155.08
MICHAEL  MACDONALD     Geomatics Lab Coordinator     $105,723.45
KEITH  MACINNES     Instructor     $100,497.45
ROSS  MACNAUGHTON     Professor     $153,011.38
VANESSA  MAGNESS     Associate Professor     $113,520.00
MARGARET M  MALONE     Associate Professor     $101,311.44
MICHAEL  MANJURIS     Professor     $151,405.04
DAVID  MARTIN     Director     $128,833.56
STEVEN  MARTIN     Director, Commercialization & Industrial Liaison     $128,143.43
HESHAM  MARZOUK     Chair, Civil Engineering     $160,028.71
DAVID  MASON     Professor     $125,714.56
ANASTASE  MASTORAS     Professor     $119,015.44
PAULA  MASTRILLI     Program Manager, Nursing     $108,320.32
MAURICE  MAZEROLLE     Associate Professor     $126,220.34
CATHERINE  MCCARTHY     Associate Professor     $123,348.79
LYNDA  MCCARTHY     Associate Professor     $107,708.12
ELIZABETH  MCCAY     Associate Professor     $126,610.06
KIMBERLY  MCCOLLUM     Senior Distributed Systems Specialist     $104,433.05
KRISTIINA  MCCONVILLE     Associate Professor     $102,270.48
MARSHA  MCEACHRANE MIKHAIL     Director/International Liaison Officer     $100,526.63
BERNARD  MCEVOY     Professor     $131,277.72
ERIN  MCGINN     Director     $125,415.25
PATRICIA  MCGRAW     Associate Professor     $117,101.56
TIM  MCINERNEY     Associate Professor     $111,645.53
DOUGLAS  MCKESSOCK     Professor     $162,058.72
MEHRAB  MEHRVAR     Associate Professor     $151,103.37
ROBERT  MEIKLEJOHN     Instructor     $165,904.89
AGNES  MEINHARD     Associate Professor     $121,702.32
NAGI  MEKHIEL     Professor     $111,248.04
RENA  MENDELSON     Professor     $141,382.40
MOURAD  MICHAEL     Manager, Network Systems     $109,297.15
WIESLAW  MICHALAK     Associate Professor     $118,629.48
LEO  MICHELIS     Professor     $131,745.20
RICHARD  MICHON     Associate Professor     $113,644.93
CATHERINE  MIDDLETON     Associate Professor     $133,035.38
BARBARA  MIELNIK-VOGEL     Associate Professor     $102,968.28
EARL  MILLER     Director, Organizational Learning     $110,095.66
JOHN  MILLER     Professor     $127,305.94
TONY  MINHAS     Lead Distributed Systems Specialist     $101,172.81
PAUL  MISSIOS     Chair, Economics     $117,709.65
ANNICK  MITCHELL     Chair, Interior Design     $146,797.32
KEN  MOFFATT     Associate Professor     $114,877.37
FARAHNAZ  MOHAMMADI     Assistant Professor     $103,944.07
JANE  MONRO     Professor     $152,092.48
COLIN  MOOERS     Professor     $131,997.52
JOHN  MORGAN     Professor     $120,173.56
MARCIA  MOSHE     Associate Dean     $132,481.24
RAYMOND  MOSS     Professor     $149,957.30
GILLIAN  MOTHERSILL     Associate Dean     $128,096.20
DOUG  MOXON     Director, Marketing & Production     $102,486.91
ELIZABETH  MOYER     Assistant Director, Client Services     $115,937.67
HOWARD  MUCHNICK     Faculty     $108,269.56
MICHAEL  MURPHY     Professor     $150,206.46
ZITA  MURPHY     Librarian     $101,949.28
BERNADINE  MURRAY     Assistant Professor     $101,857.08
ROBERT  MURRAY     Chair, Philosophy     $109,294.44
STAN  NAKAGAWA     Senior Distributed Systems Specialist     $101,823.03
JANET  NANKIVELL     Director, Development     $109,207.84
DAVID  NARANJIT     Professor     $115,721.64
DAVID  NAYLOR     Professor     $122,738.61
JAN  NEIMAN     Manager, Pension & Benefits     $101,284.67
PATRICK  NEUMANN     Assistant Professor     $102,270.48
MARY  NG     Director     $122,816.90
ROY  NG     Faculty     $113,552.46
OJELANKI  NGWENYAMA     Professor     $133,113.04
MARY JO  NICHOLSON     Professor     $150,992.40
JAMES  NORRIE     Associate Dean     $166,901.06
GALINA  OKOUNEVA     Associate Professor     $104,172.36
SHEILA  O’NEILL     Professor     $126,313.72
STEPHEN  ONYSKAY     Senior Research Associate     $103,071.62
GARNET  ORD     Associate Professor     $109,330.80
PATRICIA  O’REILLY     Associate Professor     $105,338.12
DIANE  OSSHER     Director, Business Systems     $129,614.64
JUDY  PAISLEY     Associate Professor     $123,326.10
JOSHUA  PANAR     Professor     $133,824.88
MELANIE  PANITCH     Director     $105,360.56
RUTH  PANOFSKY     Professor     $110,810.37
MARCELLO  PAPINI     Associate Professor     $130,176.63
FERNANDO  PARDO     Faculty     $112,956.84
JOAN  PARSONS     Librarian     $102,320.88
ANA  PEJOVIC-MILIC     Associate Professor     $117,093.73
KATHERINE  PENNY     Director, Experiential Learning     $130,943.56
BHAGWANT  PERSAUD     Professor     $135,695.36
WAYNE  PETROZZI     Professor     $132,269.24
WADE  PICKREN     Associate Professor     $123,658.72
ART  PIERCE     Instructor     $110,151.89
BRUCE  PIERCEY     Director, Publications & Web Services     $109,056.40
PETER  PILLE     Professor     $134,001.44
DIANE  PIRNER     Assistant Professor     $212,167.04
WADE  PITMAN     Manager, Purchasing & Payments Services     $102,371.86
WAYNE  PITTENDREIGH     Professor     $117,279.76
MICHAEL  PLASSE-TAYLOR     Assistant Professor     $103,747.68
MALGORZATA  PLAZA     Associate Professor     $102,770.48
LEO  PLOTKIN     Manager, Administrative Systems, Human Resources     $101,833.05
PAUL SOON HU  POH     Associate Professor     $119,432.08
CARMEN  POLICELLI     Lead Distributed Systems Specialist     $130,470.51
MURRAY  POMERANCE     Professor     $140,165.46
GORDON  PON     Assistant Professor     $105,780.36
CHEUNG  POON     Professor     $141,609.08
CAROLYN  POSA     Coordinator, Financial Aid     $109,330.73
NADIA  POTTS-GOMEZ     Professor     $111,715.31
JOAN  POWER     Professor     $112,404.48
FRANKLYN  PRESCOD     Assistant Professor     $118,215.63
FRANCES  PRYCHIDNY     Professor     $109,739.44
RONALD  PUSHCHAK     Professor     $121,176.20
SOPHIE  QUIGLEY     Professor     $114,954.24
KAAMRAN  RAAHEMIFAR     Associate Professor     $108,909.72
KEN  RADWAY     Program Director     $112,798.49
MARY ANNE  RAIT     Financial Systems Administrator     $103,324.53
SERGIY  RAKHMAYIL     Assistant Professor     $120,435.72
DAVID  RASMUSSON     Manager, Administrative Systems, Finance     $110,095.66
ANN  RAUHALA     Associate Professor     $106,610.80
COMONDORE  RAVINDRAN     Professor     $144,506.01
MANUEL  RAVINSKY     Associate Director     $124,417.85
MARION  REID     Faculty     $108,336.16
MONIQUE  RICHARD     Professor     $116,329.52
ROBERT  RINKOFF     Professor     $131,229.96
CLAUS  RINNER     Assistant Professor     $100,813.96
COLIN  RIPLEY     Associate Professor     $105,004.56
GLORIA  ROBERTS-FIATI     Professor     $111,349.12
LAWRENCE  ROBINSON     Manager, Safety & Security     $102,525.99
ARTHUR  ROSS     Professor     $130,006.12
NEIL  ROTHENBERG     Faculty     $107,747.74
DERICK  ROUSSEAU     Associate Professor     $119,798.61
JANE  SABER     Assistant Professor     $126,338.88
ALIREZA  SADEGHIAN     Chair, Computer Science     $130,965.23
ZIAD  SAGHIR     Professor     $133,922.65
IAN  SAKINOFSKY     Professor     $113,416.32
FILIPPO  SALUSTRI     Associate Professor     $104,960.20
JUDITH  SANDYS     Associate Professor     $129,765.00
ELAINE  SANTA MINA     Associate Professor     $168,742.45
MARCUS  SANTOS     Associate Professor     $112,257.92
NAJAM  SAQIB     Assistant Professor     $126,216.56
PHILIP  SCHALM     Program Director     $104,700.81
KENDRA  SCHANK SMITH     Chair, Arch. Sci. & Land Arch     $125,928.88
DAVID  SCHLANGER     Professor     $148,421.88
PERRY  SCHNEIDERMAN     Chair, Theatre School     $132,007.46
DIANE  SCHULMAN     Director, Secretary of Senate     $127,517.05
RKENNEDY  SCULLION     Associate Registrar, Enrollment Services & Student Records     $136,007.29
ALAN  SEARS     Associate Professor     $115,785.72
REZA  SEDAGHAT     Assistant Professor     $102,628.56
SEAN  SEDLEZKY     Manager, Program Design     $104,464.31
DEBAPRIYA  SEN     Assistant Professor     $101,718.88
KHALED  SENNAH     Professor     $129,134.10
BHARAT  SHAH     Professor     $133,496.60
ABHAY  SHARMA     Chair, Graphic Communication Management     $133,360.12
MARION  SHARP     Assistant Manager, Human Resources Business Systems     $109,001.96
ALAN  SHEPARD     Provost/Vice President, Academic     $279,707.66
JOHN  SHIELDS     Professor     $133,455.72
ANITA  SHILTON     Dean     $197,130.27
FARID  SHIRAZI     Faculty     $105,158.80
SOURAYA  SIDANI     Professor     $158,047.44
MYER  SIEMIATYCKI     Professor     $139,537.64
SUSAN  SILVER     Associate Professor     $115,435.68
EDWARD  SLOPEK     Associate Professor     $110,507.49
TIMOTHY  SLY     Professor     $125,053.20
CLAUDETTE  SMITH     Program Director     $148,619.05
DONNA  SMITH     Professor     $121,465.60
JOYCE  SMITH     Associate Professor     $105,005.74
PATRICIA  SNIDERMAN     Professor     $136,913.37
JOHN  SNYDER     Chair, Image Arts     $140,730.44
BARBARA  SOUTAR     Assistant Registrar     $127,953.65
MIKHAIL  SOUTCHANSKI     Assistant Professor     $102,124.23
KAREN  SPALDING     Associate Professor     $106,988.89
JOSEPH  SPRINGER     Professor     $125,938.60
RONALD  STAGG     Professor     $133,824.88
PAUL  STENTON     Vice Provost, University Planning     $199,383.07
MARY  STEWART     Professor     $119,187.40
SHELAGH  STEWART     Professor     $130,201.68
PETER  STRAHLENDORF     Associate Professor     $183,157.28
CAROL  STUART     Associate Professor     $111,529.12
PAMELA  SUGIMAN     Professor     $117,121.52
STEPHEN  SWALES     Assistant Professor     $114,226.12
BETH  SWART     Professor     $187,088.64
DARIA  SYDOR     Chair, Accounting     $181,993.10
JIM  TAM     Associate Professor     $111,353.24
DONALD  TAVARES     Professor     $126,912.96
DEIRDRE  TAYLOR     Professor     $138,759.31
ERIC  TERRY     Associate Professor     $122,321.24
KOKCHU DONAL  THAM     Professor     $128,696.60
NEIL  THOMLINSON     Chair, Politics/Public Admin     $111,710.92
JAMES  TIESSEN     Associate Professor     $135,982.52
BOZENA  TODOROW     Assistant Professor     $158,479.67
ELIZABETH  TROTT     Professor     $123,416.58
MONIQUE  TSCHOFEN     Associate Professor     $104,220.00
DAVID  TUCKER     Chair, Radio & Television Arts     $113,519.76
KILEEN  TUCKER SCOTT     Director     $164,283.58
SANDRA  TULLIO-POW     Associate Professor     $102,725.08
GINETTE  TURCOTTE     Professor     $122,746.80
OZGUR  TURETKEN     Associate Professor     $116,415.11
JOHN  TURTLE     Associate Professor     $110,572.62
HOLLIDAY  TYSON     Program Manager     $117,073.24
VAPPU  TYYSKA     Associate Professor     $111,392.90
SIMANT RANJA  UPRETI     Associate Professor     $104,994.13
MANDANA  VAHABI     Associate Professor     $104,086.72
DAVE  VALLIERE     Chair, Entrepreneurship     $128,165.31
AHMAD  VARVANI-FARAHANI     Associate Professor     $104,191.68
ANASTASIOS  VENETSANOPOULOS     Vice President, Research & Innovation     $303,330.14
BALASUBRAMAN  VENKATESH     Associate Professor     $101,128.32
ROSEMARIE  VOLPE     Counsellor     $102,934.68
JANICE  WADDELL     Associate Dean     $129,937.53
RICHARD  WADE     Professor     $133,824.88
CATHERINE  WALKER     Nursing, Practice/Placement Manager     $102,633.39
PAUL  WALSH     Associate Professor     $104,712.64
PHILIP  WALSH     Associate Professor     $114,642.20
J. BRAD  WALTERS     Director     $107,272.48
NANCY  WALTON     Associate Professor     $108,865.53
SHUGUANG  WANG     Chair, Applied Geography     $129,118.00
MOSTAFA  WARITH     Professor     $118,636.92
KERNAGHAN  WEBB     Associate Professor     $122,321.24
BETTINA  WEST     Assistant Professor     $103,035.26
WALLACE  WHISTANCE-SMITH     Associate Professor     $115,120.64
DOUGLAS  WHITE     Professor     $128,942.60
PETER  WILSON     Instructor     $103,356.54
ROBERT  WILSON     Professor     $127,704.88
SHARON  WILSON     Professor     $153,306.63
SUSANNAH  WILSON     Professor     $127,699.24
DANUTA  WINIARZ     Senior Manager, Budgets     $122,134.12
MARGERY  WINKLER     Professor     $118,507.24
JANICE  WINTON     Executive Director, Financial Services     $196,424.93
DENISE  WOIT     Professor     $117,810.79
GIDEON  WOLFAARDT     Associate Professor     $130,246.48
NEIL  WOLFF     Associate Dean     $147,706.12
SIU-MAN  WONG     Manager Projects     $103,915.72
KEN  WOO     Assistant Director, Communications Support     $130,574.42
KATHRYN  WOODCOCK     Associate Professor     $107,761.40
ISAAC  WOUNGANG     Assistant Professor     $110,527.45
ROBERT  WRIGHT     Professor     $123,654.78
BIN  WU     Professor     $161,667.78
JIANGNING  WU     Associate Professor     $123,046.92
R. STEPHEN  WYLIE     Associate Professor     $104,290.68
FENGFENG  XI     Professor     $121,641.48
MARGARET  YAP     Assistant Professor     $112,149.04
MAURICE  YEATES     Dean     $175,990.86
JUNE  YEE     Associate Professor     $122,539.24
JEFFREY  YOKOTA     Associate Professor     $120,867.20
SHUDONG  YU     Associate Professor     $111,928.41
FEI  YUAN     Professor     $117,194.89
YVONNE  YUAN     Associate Professor     $113,724.67
AYSE  YUCE     Chair, Finance     $131,587.52
CHARLES  ZAMARIA     Professor     $121,600.24
MARGARETH  ZANCHETTA     Associate Professor     $104,412.20
DONNA  ZATHY     Instructor     $105,961.14
O. MEHMET  ZEYTINOGLU     Professor     $156,431.20
LIAN  ZHAO     Associate Professor     $110,130.10
SAEED  ZOLFAGHARI     Associate Professor     $130,872.38
BARUCH  ZONE     Assistant Professor     $110,072.32
MALGORZATA  ZYWNO     Professor     $127,849.72

Poor to pay more under McGuinty’s HST

January 7, 2010 by admin · Leave a Comment 

Rich people and corporations get a break

Graeme Z. Johnson

With the Ontario Legislature currently debating a bill that could introduce major changes to taxation structures, including a new Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) which would combine GST and PST, Ontario residents should know how these proposed changes will affect them.

In short, unless you are wealthy, or happen to be a large business, the HST will be bad for you.

The McGuinty Liberals claim that the HST, along with other proposed corporate tax cuts, will make Ontario more competitive in attracting business and investment. The bill, if passed, would cut corporate tax rates from 14 to 12 per cent, with the eventual goal of dropping rates to 10 per cent.

At the same time, with the introduction of the 13 per cent HST, the prices of many products that had previously been exempt from PST would jump by eight per cent. This means that much of the money previously collected from big business would now be taken from individual consumers.

Not all consumers will be affected in the same way, however. Because sales tax is a form of regressive taxation, the proportion of overall income that is paid by low-income people is much higher than that paid by those with higher incomes.

Some of the greatest increases will be seen in basic living expenses such as electricity, natural gas, propane, home heating fuel, gasoline and telephone services – making this a tax grab that is almost impossible to avoid, and further restricting the already tight budgets of middle- and working-class people as well as the unemployed. Indigenous people, according to Statistics Canada, are 12.4 per cent more likely to be unemployed than non-Aboriginal people, and are also more frequently in the lowest income brackets, which makes it hard not to see harmonization as discriminatory tax reform.

There are some exceptions, however. Many people hoping to own their own home in the near future will be pleased to know that the purchase of new homes will be exempt from HST – that is, as long as that home costs more than $500,000.

As if that was not enough, many Aboriginal leaders consider the HST to violate Indigenous groups’ treaty rights to tax exemption. According to Stan Beardy, Grand Chief of the Nishnawbe Aski Nation (NAN), “for the people of Nishnawbe Aski, the right to tax exemption is based on the spirit, intent and letter of Treaties 5 and 9 which are protected by Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982 … [t]here is no doubt that an unmodified HST would be seen as a new tax in violation of this NAN Treaty right.”

Under the current taxation system, First Nations people receive a point-of-sale exemption from PST upon presentation of a status card. With the introduction of a single, blended tax, to receive exemption, goods will either have to be purchased on reserve or delivered to a reserve.

Increases in the cost of home heating fuel and propane will also unfairly target residents of rural Northern communities, of whom a disproportionate number are Indigenous. Additionally, higher gasoline costs could significantly restrict the mobility of rural dwellers who must travel longer distances to work or school and most likely do not have access to public transport.

The BC government, which also plans to introduce its own version of the HST, claims that it will actually reduce consumer costs since “[u]nder the current system, taxes are paid at every step in production and passed on to consumers.” Any lowering of consumer prices, therefore, would only be created through voluntary price reductions by producers, manufacturers and retailers. Although it would be nice to believe that companies would pass these savings on, a brief look at the pricing practices of oil producers over the past decade should explode any illusions of corporate generosity.

In order to win over the public to this obvious corporate handout, the McGuinty government has proposed a one-time, $1,000 rebate to lower-income people and families which, according to TD Economics, would not even cover the increases consumers would see in the first year, estimating that the HST could cost individuals up to $2,000 more than the current sales tax.

So, if you happen to be a large corporation, or the type of person who can afford to purchase a house worth over half a million dollars, then the HST will be great for you.

For anyone else, you might want to consider contacting your local MPP.

Tell your MPPs you oppose McGuinty’s HST. Find them online.

Who do you believe?

January 7, 2010 by admin · Leave a Comment 

Tories and Generals, or Malalai Joya, Afghan MP?

Shawn Whitney

WELL, IT SEEMS that the Tories have recognized that their own ship of lies is sinking like the Edmund Fitzgerald. They spent the better part of the week attacking Richard Colvin. Then they set the attack dog generals on them, including master pitbull, General Rick Hillier. They all denied that anyone knew anything about anything - which makes one wonder what qualifies them to lead anything more complicated than a lemonade stand.

Well, now the Tories have changed their tune alright. Now they knew right from the very start something was amiss. Huh? Were they just testing us all week? Feeding us the big lie to see how gullible we are, and then, when they can hold a straight face no longer, they shout: “psych!”?

Somebody should have told their generals that this was the plan, because their story was still the old one, right up till the last minute. Then, suddenly, whooomp, everything was different. As Defense Minister, Peter MacKay put it: “Obviously there were concerns about the state of prisons,” he said. “There were concerns about allegations. There were concerns about information found in reports. There were concerns.”

I also have concerns about Peter MacKay, but they are a little different than his concerns. I’m concerned that he’s going to give himself whiplash.

Perhaps he read or listened to the CBC interview with Malalai Joya, the former Afghan MP - thrown out of the Afghan Parliament for raising embarrassing questions about the human rights records of our “democratic allies.” On November 19, Joya stated unequivocally that this was not news to people living in Afghanistan:

“What [Colvin] has been saying is what I’ve heard from my people,” she said. “Many of the victims are women and children detainees who have been raped,” she said. “It’s not new for our people.”

What is clear is that were it not for pressure from people outside of the Tory government, with their paranoia, they would have hidden everything forever. The only real concerns that MacKay and his ilk had was that it would get out that what we were (and are) creating in Afghanistan is a corrupt torture regime. The key difference between them and the Taliban is that the former are willing to do our bidding almost without question. In return for obedience, we’ll let them torture whoever they want.

This article originally appeared on RedBedHead, a blog by Toronto artist and activist Shawn Whitney, on November 28, 2009.

Kick the Tories while they’re down

January 7, 2010 by admin · Leave a Comment 

Shawn Whitney

PRIME MINISTER STEPHEN Harper has had a remarkably easy ride over the past two minority governments. He’s been incompetent on the economy and undermined the population’s faith in their H1N1 plans. He’s been mean-spirited and taken every opportunity to attack the arts, Muslims, the unemployed, et cetera. He’s lied, broken promises, had a government that has gone against the sentiment of the vast majority of Canadians on the war in Afghanistan and climate change. He had Maxime Bernier as Foreign Affairs Minister, the incompetent dolt who leaves classified government documents at his girlfriend’s house, and Rona Ambrose as Environment Minister, though she had no knowledge or qualifications for the job.

How does he survive? It’s not anything to do with his ability to keep his people under control. This is a useful myth. If anything, the Stalinist-like paranoia of this government should itself be an easy target for the opposition parties and media. Nor is it about his particularly skillful ability to spin the government’s message in a way that connects with people. He’s just not personable.

No, it’s the result of a politically weak opposition in parliament.

I’ll admit that I’m not one of those people who thinks that the NDP should link up with the Liberals to unite “progressives.” I think for the NDP, trying to differentiate themselves would be a disaster. And it would be counter-productive to the needs of the vast majority of the population.

The Liberals are a party of business, like the Tories, though they are, in their language, more pragmatic, consensus-builders, etc. than the latter. But we shouldn’t forget that it was the Liberals that sent our troops to Afghanistan. And it was the Liberals, under Chrétien and Martin who slashed social spending to eliminate a deficit created in no small part by cuts to taxes for corporations and the wealthy under Tory Brian Mulroney. And, of course, the leader of the Liberals is notorious for having supported torture by the US government to gain information from “suspected terrorists.”

However, this perfect storm of timidity and political consensus - disguised behind occasional bouts of oppositional fervour over silly technical side-issues (like Bernier’s forgetting his briefcase) – couldn’t last forever. Sooner or later, they would be hoisted on their own petard – just as with enough manure and rain, something eventually must sprout.

The prisoner scandal appears to be that thing. Even with lickspittle, Tory-toad columnists Rosie DiManno and Christie Blatchford working overtime to justify every inhumanity the Tories and their military enforcers implement, the Opposition has finally found something that they can nail the Tories on. And the Tories’ attempt to smear a man of obvious ability, commitment and honour, has blown up in their faces. They are now fighting a rearguard action to try and prevent a public inquiry on the prisoner torture issue. They have clearly lost the initiative and everything they now do simply looks like cover-up and back-pedaling.

This breach in the Tory fortress and sense of purpose and momentum by the Opposition - with the Liberals having to hide Ignatieff to be able to take advantage of this opportunity - could help to reinvigorate not only the anti-war movement, but also other broadly anti-Tory forces across the country. This moment won’t last forever – that’s for certain. And the Opposition has demonstrated an uncanny ability to discover ways of missing any opportunity that comes their way. The social movements, the union movement in particular, need to be taking this opportunity to put the boot in to the Tories - over EI, social spending, Afghanistan, Omar Khadr, climate change and more.

If we miss this chance, we’ll have no one to blame but ourselves for several more years of Tory government, including the possibility of a majority next time around. And that is a possibility just too depressing to consider.

This article originally appeared on RedBedHead, a blog by Toronto artist and activist Shawn Whitney, on December 1, 2009.

Commerce Society denies access to AGM

January 3, 2010 by admin · Leave a Comment 

David Thurton

The Ryerson Free Press was denied access to the Ryerson Commerce Society’s Semi- Annual General meeting.

The meeting held in the business building in November allows business students who fall under the society, to vote and approve measures.

Two days before the meeting the Ryerson Free Press e-mailed the commerce society asking for permission to attend the meeting.

The society’s president Naeem Hassen replied saying that the RCS didn’t have enough room to accommodate the RFP.

The RFP sent another e-mail to Hassen. But the president didn’t respond.

Another e-mail was sent to the RCS’s president saying: “As the newspaper that is in part funded by student fees from students in the faculty of business, it is of great interest for our readers that the Ryerson Free Press report on the various motions that are going to be debated at your meeting.”

Hassen said no again. However this time he said:

“We will not be providing press passes at the SAGM. It will be closed for membership purposes only.”

The Ryerson Free Press still went to the meeting. However, this newspaper was greeted at the door by the commerce society’s general manager Abdul Snobar.

Snobar said that the meeting was for commerce society members only. He said that the RFP did not represent business students and as a result were not allowed entrance. He also said that the RFP was funded by the Continuing Education Students’ Association of Ryerson and not the commerce society.

However, the Eyeopener was still allowed to attend the meeting, despite different funding sources and the commerce society’s claim that they were not issuing press.

Outside the meeting sat the RFP. Many other business students sat outside too typing on their laptops and bible sized text books opened on their laps.

“You have to provide your employees with the power to make decision,” said a hospitality student holding cue cards as he rehearsed a presentation that was due in the next few minutes.

Students. All busy. All concerned about mid-terms, final projects and not concerned or aware that the organization that represents them and they fund was holding an important meeting.

“I don’t know. What’s (RCS) it about,” said one business student who refused to give her name.

Does Obama deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?

December 3, 2009 by admin · Leave a Comment 

MAYBE

Sachin Seth

President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. Some are ecstatic, some are confused and some are overcome with anger.

I thought it was an odd decision. Especially given the other nominees which include the Cluster Munition Coalition, a group that strives to clean up cluster bombs and decrease accidental civilian war deaths and Dr. Denis Mukwege, an inspired young Congolese physician who opened a hospital to treat female victims of sexual abuse.

Inspiring, to say the least. Deserving candidates, no doubt.

And then there’s the victor, Barack Obama. A Harvard law school graduate, community organizer, civil rights lawyer, law professor, junior senator and president of the most “powerful” country in the world. A stunning resume, but where are the accomplishments? The peace work, the advocacy, the results?

That’s what so many are asking. What so many are wondering. And while I, a supporter of Obama, do not think he deserved the award based solely on his accomplishments to date, I do believe the award was given for a reason, and a just, sane reason at that.

Now hear me out. Obama won the prize not just for what he has achieved in less than 10 months (which is quite a bit if you look at it with an open mind) but for how he changed the game and reshaped the face of a nation so hated and demonized for so many years. For the potential of peace on a plethora of fronts.

Obama is in the process of sewing together the gaping wound that is America’s international reputation; not an easy feat. It’s something that no other modern Democratic or Republican candidate could do in two terms, let alone a quarter of one.

The fact that the Norway-based committee stressed it made the prize decision based on Obama’s efforts to date was a little strange. I don’t really believe that to be the case, nor does anyone else, even the hardest and strongest Obama supporters. Obama doesn’t believe it either, rightfully so.

Strengthening the international reputation of the most “powerful”nation in the world contributes to peace in many ways. His efforts toward nuclear disarmament are commendable. His decision to end the missile-defence system in Poland led to strengthened ties with Russia, a nuclear powerhouse. His administration has striven for peace with India, another nuclear nation.

His efforts to strengthen relationships and mend ties between Americans and Muslims was politically risky, but so right and groundbreaking morally.

His confusion on Afghanistan is warranted, no one knows what the hell is needed there, and the answer given (”more troops”) isn’t a surprising one. But he’s taking his time and not rushing.

Some view him as the “do-nothing” president or the president of “inaction.” I view him thoughtful and rational, and I’d rather he take weeks to decide the fate of thousands of

American soldiers than make a quick decision (like the last guy) and put so many soldiers in harm’s way just because of political pressure from both sides of the spectrum, without thinking it through and weighing the options. That’s called reasoning.

His no-nonsense discussions with Iran, without preconditions, a proposition he was so ridiculed for during his campaign, showed the world he is committed to nuclear disarmament and a more peaceful Mid-East.

His speech in Cairo, though predictable, reaffirmed that idea. His quoting the Qu’ran was a great way to connect with an overwhelmingly large global group so alienated by American ideological extremists.

We elected him for that reason. Because he’s intelligent, thoughtful, peaceful, multi-racial and ambitious. It’s been less than a year. How many ambitions are achieved in 10 months? None. But the path to realizing those ambitions has been laid.

Oz

Let me make it a bit clearer by using a crude but wonderfully applicable analogy.

Think of Obama as Dorothy and his path to peace as the yellow brick road. When Obama crash landed in the White House after a whirlwind electoral campaign, he was curious, ambitious, excited and ready to overhaul the system. Soon he realized that that’s not possible, at least not as quick as he thought. There are hundreds, if not thousands of people to please and political and social hurdles to vault.

Just as the Afghanistan war became more brutal and a reassessing of the plan was needed (just as Dorothy tried to find out from the munchkins how she could get back to Kansas), Obama was given hope, something he’d given, in abundance, to millions around the world.

The Peace Prize committee are the munchkins, they are Glinda (the good witch). They gave Obama direction, thanked him for his bravery and pushed him, inspired him (as he inspired us) to continue his work. To keep on going. After all, he doesn’t want to be the guy who won the prize and did nothing to deserve it. And no, he’s not already that guy.

There will be obstacles (the wicked witch, the fake Wizard of Oz) however Obama/Dorothy prevail in the end, defeating the evils that stand in their ways. Yes you can think he was awarded prematurely, but only if you view the award as something given only for hard results.

More results will come, the award is faith in that.

In fact, the award was also given because he’s changed the world’s mood. He’s made global citizens happier and more tolerant in times of economic uncertainty, global racially charged fear, terrorism and war.

However there are many who wonder if Obama’s ego has been so inflated that he believes himself the saviour of America and the world.

But to those of you who ask that, I ask why is he so “humbled” by the award? Why is it the man, the president, started off his acceptance and justification speech by talking about his two children? Yes, he has speech writers, but only he heard what his kids said that morning. And he remembered.

Yes Obama is a little egotistical, he is, after all, the president. But don’t forget, we gave him that ego (see: road to ‘08 election).

Finally, for those who believe Obama didn’t deserve this prize, you hold a valid view. I too believe Dr. Mukwege or the Cluster Munition Coalition deserve an award of recognition for peace work.

My argument is that Obama’s victory isn’t unwarranted or undeserving. His accomplishments to date are impressive, his future is full of possibilities and the peace prize was awarded to him by a panel “instructed to encourage international co-operation, arms reduction and acts of engagement” for his initiative and to ensure he keeps working towards his, and our, ultimate goal.

Peace.

Does Obama deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?

December 3, 2009 by admin · Leave a Comment 

YES

Sara Torvik

Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King, Jr., Archbishop Desmond Tutu…and Barack Obama: even though you may be thinking “one of these things is not like the other,” all the names on this list have one thing in common. All are Nobel Peace Prize winners.

There is no doubt that US President Barack Obama is a very well-liked and respected man, both in America and around the world, but news that he was named the latest recipient of the prize threw a lot of people for a loop. The general consensus seemed to be that this was all way too soon and that Obama hadn’t really done anything this early in his presidency to deserve such a great honour.

But is that really true?

If I had to be honest, and go against the grain, I’m not really sure that I agree with the “he-hasn’t-done-anything-to-deserve-it” commentary. There is now so much more communication, multilateralism and sincere effort coming from the White House than when George Bush was president that all the comments about Obama not doing anything yet don’t really make sense. Heck, it wasn’t just America that was celebrating when he won the election last November. There seemed to be a global party around the world when that happened, and it doesn’t seem as if there are as many people willing to admit that they dislike America ever since Obama came into office. That’s a step in the right direction, if you ask me.

To add to it, the Nobel Committee has also specifically cited Obama’s denuclearization effort, which is pretty huge. I am well aware that Obama is probably not going to save the world and that the United States is still in the midst of two wars but I have to appreciate his trying: a) not to  antagonize the entire planet and b) to encourage countries to put down the nukes, his included.

Now that he has the Nobel Prize in his hands hopefully that will inspire him to keep doing things that are good for America and the rest of the world over the course of his presidency instead of getting lazy or apathetic later on.

According to the Associated Press, there are many misconceptions about the Nobel Prize, including the idea that it is always awarded to people who have made successful efforts for peace, human rights and democracy. More often than not, according to the website, the prize is awarded to “encourage those who receive it to see the effort through, sometimes at critical moments.”

Sounds like they knew exactly what they were doing when they gave it to President Obama.

Do you think Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize? Let us know what you think. Email opinions@ryersonfreepress.ca.

Students need solidarity, not sabotage

December 3, 2009 by admin · Leave a Comment 

Johan Boyden

The thirteen defederation campaigns against the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) have become a topic of debate beyond the politics pages of the English-speaking Canadian campus press.

From my outlook, this confirms that students are correct to be vigilant against the recent dangerous anti-student developments on campuses.

Those developments have included the attacks on academic freedom and free speech against Palestinian solidarity activists, the heavy-handed approach of many university top administrators to student demonstrations, and the exposure of cross-Canada training workshops with sitting MPs – “how-to” sessions on uniting disparate folks from Zionists and anti-abortion activists against local student unions, Public Interest Research Groups, and the CFS. This, and such things as MP Peter Kent’s interference in the students’ union elections at York University, are a marked escalation of Conservative party anti-student tactics (from mainly offering a secret slush-fund to right-wingers seeking election).

But now the signers of a well-circulated letter (“From the left to the Canadian Federation of Students,” which includes some well-respected activists with integrity) assert that the right is not alone in its disstatisfaction with the CFS. Postings on the anti-student Maclean’s blog also claim it’s the right with some on so-called “left.”

Let’s put aside the fact for a moment that their rallying call – destroying the CFS is more democratic than its continued existence – is as strikingly wrong-headed and ideologically narrow as their strategic evaluation that, to win a stronger student movement, “left” students should unite with forces representing, beneath the astro-turf camouflage, big business’ interests. This discussion will have a lasting impact on the character of the student movement in Canada. It is not idle talk.

Regardless of who is organizing these campaigns, right-wing governments have much to gain by effectively silencing the students; the most organized voice of the youth who are always a dynamic part of any resistance. Working communities are wrestling with an economic wrecking ball, as the recession continues to destroy jobs and families; and we’re footing a billion-dollar bill for an imperialist war in Afghanistan.

That’s why the most favourable scenario in the context of these defederation campaigns is that they fail, amounting to a huge waste of time that took students away from vital campaigning. The worst case is that students and all the people’s movements become much more vulnerable to attack from the right. In fact, the way forward lies in placing greater emphasis on mobilization and resistance rather than just communications strategies and lobbying – exactly what countless genuine CFS grassroots militants across the country are actually debating and engaging in, with campaigns like Drop Fees.

It is helpful to reflect on the history of struggle for student unity across Canada. Campaigns for greater access to quality, democratic, public post-secondary education, afterall, began well before the elite gilded doors were finally burst open by a post-war influx of veterans (fresh with the memories of Great Depression era-struggles for accessibility of health care, education, unemployment insurance and other social programmes, and united formations of students like the Canadian Youth Congress).

Working people need education like we need medicine. It is life. It connects us with our ancestors. It preserves our traditions of struggle, our achievements. It defines what and who we are. These demands temporarily corresponded with corporations that required an educated workforce in the 1960s, with a state-funded mass infrastructure expansion of schools, relatively cheap or even zero tuition fees, grants, and expansion of French-language post-secondary education to include scientific and technical training.

To many it appeared that, through struggle, Canada too might obtain the UN Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ important goal: that post-secondary be free in countries which can afford it, by then the case in most European states and almost all socialist countries like the USSR, many of them poorer than Canada. In 1976 Canada signed a UN covenant promising to gradually introduce free education at all levels.

The subsequent neoliberal assault on post-secondary education, however, viciously eroded earmarked federal post-secondary funding, forcing working families to pay for post-secondary through savings and wages, not corporate taxes, and facilitating the plunder of education for corporate profits. But as a recent letter from progressive students in defence of the Federation has noted, the urgent necessity of a federal role in post-secondary has never changed. Rejecting the narrow and flawed framework of Canada’s Constitution (which places education as a provincial matter) students have long fought for a federal-level movement that reflects the multi-national reality of the Canadian state.

Inseparably intertwined in that fight was unity with fellow youth and progressive forces in Canada and around the world (often expressed through the International Union of Students). As Manitoba student activist Brian Latour has commented, “when you are a large civil society organization like a student union or a labour union, solidarity and coalition building is not something you maybe get around to at some point when everything is peachy, it is something that you make time for.”

This unity of the students and their allies was won through countless skirmishes and trench warfare in the battle of ideas over the place and future of education in society. The students were not only poorly equiped, with uneven and limited access to even the basic tools of campaigning like resources for research, publication, education, mobilization, and coordination; they also faced an orchestrated campaign of surveillance, even infiltration by political police in the form of the RCMP and, much later, the CSIS.

The shameful complicity of top university administrators, right-wing students and their various organizations (fraternities, campus conservative associations, etc), government and Big Business against the students is well documented.  The ruling class and their political parties have even colluded with the ultra-left in trying to divert the efforts of students into limited service delivery and impotent strategies and tactics. But that is not the basis from which student unity flows. The basis lies in students need. The fight for student’s rights is therefore the fundamental purpose of any students’ union.

Thus we see the story of the students’ movement – sometimes misguided, occasionally tragically so, but also brave and noble: the development and then painful demise of the Canadian Union of Students in 1969; the emergence of a militant left pole in the Quebec students movement (ANEQ); re-grouping of the English-Canadian student movement during the 1970s with the National Union of Students later re-named the Canadian Federation of Students in 1981; the deliberate splitting of the left pole in Quebec (producing today’s ASSÉ and the Federations); the deliberate splitting of the CFS during its courageous campaigns of the 1990s (forming the reactionary Canadian Alliance of Student Associations); the magnificent united fights of the Quebec students in 2005.

If there were not progressive central student organizations, we would have to create them.

Certainly criticism can be made of the CFS – it is not all sorts of blemishes and defects. There are real problems, so let’s get to work to solve them.  The desire for unity amongst people’s movements is not accidental, nor can it be permanently extinguished.  Because of our common interests against Big Business, this desire constantly finds renewed expression and depth, even in the face of major setbacks.

As others have noted, those claiming the Federation can’t be reformed and must be destroyed have to face the objective necessity for students to have a cross-Canada organization to advance their rights to more accessible, quality and democratic education, student aid, housing, affordable transit, well paid and meaningful work, healthcare, peace, and many other causes. Indeed, apart from organization, what other power do students have?

And that’s a damn good reason for keeping and strengthening the Canadian Federation of Students – not only for our generation but generations to come.

Unholy Alliance?

December 3, 2009 by admin · Leave a Comment 

Conservatives and ultra-leftists unite against CFS

Brian Latour

Recently, there has been much hullabaloo about the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) in the student media, as well among the usual suspects over at Maclean’s (here’s hoping the National Post somehow takes Maclean’s down with it). It’s mostly the usual stuff regarding disaffiliation campaigns, but with a twist this time. The interesting thing is that it doesn’t seem like it is just Tiny Tories anymore. A website titled “Dear CFS” appears to be run by a section of the Montreal radical left which is opposed to the CFS and actively working for disaffiliation campaigns. Signatoried to the letter include Yves Engler, author of The Black Book of Canadian Foreign Policy. As someone who identifies as an anarchist (anarcho-syndicalist if you want to get picky) and proudly carries my red card, yet is also active in my CFS-affiliated student union (to the point where I sometimes catch myself referring to it as “Local 103”).

First, the CFS is far from perfect. Student union bureaucrats, especially at universities which have an active right, a history of right-wing governance, or a hostile student media, often fear conflict which could threaten the prospects of the re-election of a “progressive” slate and the self-preservation of any sort of official progressive politics at a university. They think that everyone is out to get them and to some extent they are right, as evidenced by the exposure of Tiny Tory plots over the years. However, this understandable paranoia can cause sections of the bureaucracy to start to become insular and bureaucratic, which results in some of the issues that we see in our student unions.

Also, despite what it says on my hoodie, there is a difference between the CFS and a student movement. The CFS is a bureaucratic (meant without any negative connotations) mass membership organization, somewhat analogous to labour unions, with elected positions, an office, a big (by activist standards) budget, and a lobbying machine. While a student movement, where one has any presence, is a grassroots movement of students organizing in their spare time with every student an organizer. And as we all can figure out, a bureaucracy detached from a movement inevitably results in all sorts of issues. And perhaps the praxis of the CFS does need a lot of work. This is an organization that needs more organization at the bottom and to move a little from the liberal politics of awareness to the radical politics of disruption and fucking shit up.

All that said, there are things in this supposedly left critique which ignore a number of progressive CFS-led initiatives.

From “Drop Fees” to “No Means No” to “Target Poverty,” it seems as though rather than hijacking campaigns, the CFS is at the forefront of creating and pushing campaigns. I don’t think the CFS attracts bad press to external campaigns it signs on to, if anything, it grants them a bit of legitimacy, resources and muscle, and may generate some positive publicity or an increase in support for the issues on campus. In Manitoba, instead of attempting to co-opt social justice organizing, the CFS and local student unions are the only mass membership organizations really making an effort to mobilize their members or even lend some bureaucratic support for any sort of campaign these days. This might be different over in Montreal, but in my experience, I have seen the CFS take part in campaigns, but I have never seen them attempt to co-opt them.

As for CFS-Services, I don’t see any problem with student-run services, especially under the model they have with CFS-Services as a legally separate branch of the CFS. In fact, I would say that students do benefit from some of these services, especially bulk buying and economies of scale. Incidentally, if I am not mistaken, all of the t-shirts ordered by the CFS or by individual student unions through their bulk buying programs are made by a worker co-op of single mothers in El Salvador – hardly the corporate behemoth that CFS-Services is portrayed as.

Surprisingly. part of the left critique coming out of Montreal is based on the argument that the CFS should stayf out of solidarity campaigns, and focus on “student issues.” This is more offten a common refrain of the right.
Why should this be “deeply problematic”? First off, there are more to “student issues” than just the ones which are seen as directly affecting students. Attacks on students are just one part of something bigger, capital’s global known as neoliberalism. We should be building coalitions and working in solidarity with people opposing an incredibly brutal intensification of the capitalist system around the world, not dismissing it as “unrepresentative.” The CFS is a civil society organization and a democratic organization of students. Why should it be prevented from taking stances on issues?

Also, copyright is a “student issue” (did I mention I hate this dichotomy of student issues and non-student issues?). We often come across it in our research, and the commodification of knowledge and culture has deep implications for any student doing any sort of research.

Furthermore, the CFS represents a broad cross-section of society – women, LGBT students, students of colour, Aboriginal students, and international students from nations oppressed by global imperialism. It seems a little privileged to argue that the CFS, as their representative, should completely ignore their issues and refuse to take positions in support of their rights, especially given what myself and others have seen about the racist nature of our university.

It also seems awkward to complain about the CFS taking stances on issues such as gender when above the authors are complaining that “While quick to pay lip service to marginalized and disenfranchised communities, evidence of actual progress is hardly forthcoming.” The authors decry the CFS for not making progress, then complain about the CFS taking stands on these issues. Do they want this acutal progress or not?

It is also absurd to claim that it is inapproprate to claim that the CFS is adopting campaigns such as Palestinian solidarity. I wish the national CFS, my provincial wing, or my local student union did, but they don’t (I wrote about this issue a few months ago). Also, CUPE Ontario and CUPW have voted to endorse the BDS movement against Israel – would it be logically consistent for these activists to also call for a decertification of these unions on that basis? Are they opposed to CUPE Ontario and CUPW’s endorsement of the BDS movement as well? Also, as someone who has a bit of experience in the Palestinian solidarity movement, I was under the impression that one of the goals of the BDS movement was to get large organizations to sign on and use their political and economic clout to end apartheid in Israel. It seems absurd to me that any Palestinian solidarity activist would oppose a civil society organization representing hundreds of thousands of students signing on to a BDS campaign. If anything, this only advances the cause and should make genuine Palestinian solidarity activists happy.

Finally, to address the notion that these “matters of urgent importance to all students” are going untouched, that is flat out wrong. It is the absolute height of absurdity to claim that the tuition issue has gone untouched when it is pretty much the biggest thing the CFS has done last year, and the CFS has been routinely and unfairly criticized for focusing too much on tuition. Has the writer of this document ever seen this?

Some people may say that any “other” issues should be ignored until such time as the CFS has won on all the “core student issues,” but when you are a large civil society organization like a student union or a labour union, solidarity and coalition-building is not something you maybe get around to at some point when everything is peachy, it is something that you make time for. If we all decided to stop doing solidarity work until we’ve sorted out our own issues, no solidarity work would ever get done.

All in all, the CFS is far from perfect and I am sympathetic to genuine left critiques of the organization. And I am very intrigued by radical student federations such as ASSÉ in Quebec. But all that aside, I think we’re better off with the CFS than without. If you’re going to convince me that opposition to the CFS is a left position, you’re going to need a lot more than recycled Tiny Tory talking points and a rejection of any sort of solidarity campaigns.

This is an edited version of an article that was originally posted on the Canadian Dimension blog.

Health care in the Great White North

December 3, 2009 by admin · Leave a Comment 

As Americans debate the merits of nationalized health care, Norman Otis Richmond reflects on our own system in Canada.

Before coming to Canada in 1967, I honestly knew of only two Canadians: Harry Jerome and Norman Bethune.

Jerome was an African-born in Canada and a world-class sprinter who competed in the 1960, 1964 and 1968 Olympics. One of my schoolmates from Fremont High School in Los Angeles, Richard Stebbins, competed against Jerome in the 1964 Olympics. At one time in my arrested development, I even believed Jerome was the only Black person in the Great White North.

I knew about Bethune because Chairman Mao Zedong mentioned him in The Quotations of Chairman Mao Zedong. I must confess many of my neighbours in South Central Los Angeles were aware of Mao, Zhou Enlai and Zhu De and other leaders of the 1949 Chinese Revolution.

Bethune (March 3, 1890-November 12, 1939) was a Euro-Canadian doctor in the 1930s who was a pioneer in socialized health care. He also worked in Spain and China to support the struggles against fascism in those countries. He was a medical innovator and developed the first mobile blood-transfusion service in Spain in 1936. Many feel that Bethune is as important to health care in Canada as Tommy Douglas, the father of Canada’s health care system.

Born in Gravenhurst, Ontario, Bethune was to the left of Douglas.

“Twenty-five years ago, it was thought contemptible to be called a socialist. Medical reforms, such as limited heath insurance schemes, are not socialized medicine. They are a bastard form of socialism produced by belated humanitarianism out of necessity,” Bethune said at the Symposium on Medical Economics in 1936.

There is a wide body of work both in film and books on the life and times of Bethune. The National Film Board of Canada and Hollywood also have work about him.

Many progressives recommend Ted Allan and Sydney Gordon’s volume, The Scalpel, the Sword: the Story of Doctor Norman Bethune. This work was published in 1952, revised in 1971 and reprinted in 1981. A Canadian film, Bethune: The Making of a Hero, was made in the 1990s.

Adrienne Clarkson, a Chinese-Canadian and former Governor General of Canada from 1999 to 2005, has attempted to repackage Bethune and present him merely as a humanitarian in her new book Extraordinary Canadians Norman Bethune. But Bethune was for the total transformation of Canadian society and the world.

I, along with millions who have had children born in Canada, am in debt to Bethune. My son was born on November 10, 1987. He wasn’t due until March of 1988. I was preparing for a trip to Africa when he was born prematurely. The child weighed in at one pound, nine ounces or 710 grams. He jumped the gun after only 26-and-a-half weeks. He stayed in Women’s College Hospital until April 4, 1988.

The issue of health care is the most burning question in the United States at the moment. President Barack Obama is under attack by the right for his stand on health care. President Obama seems to have taken a single payer’s system off the table in the current debate.

Bruce Dixon, Managing Editor of BlackAgendaReport.com, has pointed out: “President Obama seems to have changed his promise from health care to coverage, not care. He’s turned the crusade for health care into a crusade for universal health insurance.”

When President Obama was a senator from Illinois, he spoke forcefully for a single payer system and said it should be a human right. Not so in 2009. President Obama has repeatedly said he is not a socialist. The hard right has repeatedly said that he is a Marxist who follows Karl and not Groucho, Harpo or Chico.

However, socialism’s obituary was prematurely written. Venezuela and other nations have joined Cuba and are opting for what they call “21st century socialism.”

Denzel Washington gave a splendid performance in the film, John Q, which was filmed in Toronto. However, Hollywood did not reward him for his role in this film. Many observers feel that Washington was punished for playing in a film that points out the contradictions in the health care system in the United States. But he was rewarded for portraying a corrupt Los Angeles policeman in Training Day.

The Canadian health care system is clearly more humane than the American system. However, all is not well in the Great White North.

A recent report from Member of Parliament Olivia Chow (New Democratic Party) revealed: “Presently, four million Canadians are unable to find a family doctor and nurses continue to be overburdened… In fact, each patient that is added beyond a nurse’s capacity increases patient mortality by seven per cent, while citizens who are unable to find a general practitioner go undiagnosed and minor illnesses become life-threatening.”

Please let me know what you think. Email me at norman.o.richmond@gmail.com.

Next Page »

Viagra Online