The Globe and Mail - 06.11.2019

WEDNESDAY,NOVEMBER6,2019 | THE GLOBE AND MAILO A

OPINION

NEWS |

E

very so often, I’m invited to a
school to talk about journal-
ism. It’s usually at a college
or university, but last month, I
spoke at the High School Journal-
ism Conference in Toronto. No of-
fence to the classrooms full of
twentysomethings that I’ve
bored in the past, but the teenag-
ers’ energy and engagement was
so intense it was startling. I men-
tioned it later to an organizer,
who speculated that high school-
ers still face consequences if they
don’t put down their phones and
pay attention.
That’s probably not the entire
reason, but it is true that older

students are often looking at

their screens instead of me. It’s al-

so true that reams of studies have

shown that excessive cellphone

use can interrupt learning and

harm academic performance. So

on the face of it, the classroom

cellphone ban instituted by the

Ontariogovernment makes a lot

of sense.

Look a little deeper, though,

and things get murkier. Firstly,

the ban isn’t really a ban at all.

Students can still use phones for

educational, health or medical

purposes, which was already

many schools’ stated or de facto

policy. And with 10,000 teaching

jobs slated to be eliminated over

the next five years, larger classes

and more work will reduce teach-

ers’ ability to limit phone use any-

way.

Meanwhile, the Progressive

Conservatives are making online

high-school classes mandatory,

even though they carry many of

the same risks as cellphones for

developing adolescent brains.

Plus, both the elementary and

secondary school teachers’

unions are poised to strike, mean-

ing children may lose out on

schooling entirely. While this

week’s pseudo-ban on classroom

cellphone use may do some good,

it won’t make up for the many

ways the provincialgovernment

keeps mucking up the education

file.

Plenty of research suggests

that overuse of cellphones can

have a negative effect on adoles-

cents’ academic performance.

One 2015 study on texting pub-

lished by the American Psycho-

logical Association said texting in

class lessened the level of detail in

students’ notes, as well as their

ability to recall details of the day’s

lessons.

Girls, especially, tended to be

preoccupied by social interac-

tions over text. Along with inter-

fering with school work, it drove

up their levels of anxiety and

mental distress.

Fractured attention spans are

an obvious risk: The same study

found that students were distract-

ed by their phones as often as ev-

ery six minutes. But a similar

problem was found in a 2019

study of online learning out of

Kent State University. Attempts

to multitask were greater in on-

line courses than face-to-face

classrooms, with a noted negative

effect on understanding, recall

and retention.

The Kent paper focused on col-

lege students, which makes Onta-

rio’s decision to have all high-

school students take four courses

online particularly ill-advised.

Researchers found that younger

students were more likely to have

their attention drift when being

taught by a computer, instead of a

teacher.

Five per cent of Ontario high-

school students currently take an

online course, most often high

achievers who want to get anoth-

er credit quickly. That number

will spike to 95 per cent when the

new program begins next year,

meaning even those not suited to

e-learning will have to try it any-

way. This is a particular disadvan-

tage to boys, who are more likely

than girls to be weak readers. Not

to mention that the government

still hasn’t explained how stu-

dents who don’t have easy access

to high-speed internet are sup-

posed to complete these courses.

That’s the long-term view – in

the short term, the province

keeps presenting families with

potential education chaos. Hav-

ing barely escaped a strike by

education support workers last

month, the PCs are now standing

off with teachers. Ontario’s ele-

mentary teachers just voted 98

per cent in favour of strike action

that could begin in about two

weeks. High-school teachers

haven’t had a strike vote yet, but

their union is just as displeased in

its negotiations with the prov-

ince. Both groups want changes

to the province’s proposed in-

creased class sizes, below-infla-

tion wage increase and reduced

per-student funding.

So sure, restricting cellphone

use in classrooms is a great idea.

It’s not a substitute, though, for a

genuine commitment to quality

education for Ontario’s public-

school students.

Cellphonebanissmart–buthypocritical

OntarioPremierFord’s

classroomrestriction

isagoodidea–but

it’snosubstitutefor

genuinecommitment

toeducation

DENISE
BALKISSOON

OPINION

The ban isn’t really a

ban at all. Students can

still use phones for

educational, health or

medical purposes,

which was already many

schools’ stated or de

facto policy.

T

he Democrats have a habit
of falling in love with saint-
ly new faces as potential na-
tion-rescuers.
After Richard Nixon, along
came the pious Jimmy Carter. “I
will never lie to you,” he solemnly
vowed. He won the Democratic
nomination, then the presidency.
In 1988, Michael Dukakis, an-
other virtuous type, became the
nominee and was promptly wal-
loped by George H.W. Bush. After
Mr. Bush’s son W. and his war-
mongering vice-president, Dick
Cheney, came the noble and
high-minded Barack Obama.
Now, another do-gooder
threatens to claim the country’s
saviour mantle. That would be
the brainiac wonder boy Pete
Buttigieg. Less than a year ago, he
was the totally unknown 37-year-
old gay mayor of South Bend, Ind.
Now, he’s the candidate on the
move. He’s only fourth in nation-
al polls, far behind the three old
warhorses – Joe Biden, Bernie
Sanders and Elizabeth Warren –
all of whom are no less than two
generations older than him.
But national polls aren’t the
key barometer. Where to look is
where the candidates stand in the
first two primaries, Iowa and New
Hampshire. Mr. Buttigieg is right
there with the front-runners in
Iowa and on the rise in the Gran-
ite State.
Mayor Pete is touting the Oba-
ma comparison. In a recent fun-
draising letter (I’m somehow on
his mailing list), he made the
point that this campaign was
2008 all over again, that he is re-

kindling the same excitement in

today’s hyper-divided country as

happened that year.

What gives Mr. Buttigieg dis-

tinction in the field is that he is a

religious Democrat. At a time

when the country’s moral stan-

dards are being shredded, he

comes across as a young man of

moral stature and authority well

capable of leading an ethical re-

naissance.

A devout Espicopalian who

cites Scripture, Mayor Pete uses

the language of faith in his cam-

paign, something Democrats

have always shied away from and

something that is normally the

domain of Republicans.

He confronts religious conser-

vatives, calling out the Christian

right for its shameful charade in

supporting an immoral President

such as Donald Trump.

It’s hypocrisy on stilts – and he

is right to do so. “The Republican

party likes to cloak itself in the

language of religion,” Mr. Butti-

gieg says. “We should call out hy-

pocrisy when we see it.”

He has taken on Vice-Presi-

dent Mike Pence for his opposi-

tion to same-sex marriage. On

immigration, he says any party

that thinks “God would condone

putting children in cages has lost

all claim to ever use religious lan-

guage again.”

Mr. Buttigieg has the three

leading candidates looking over

their shoulders. He is a moderate

from the Rust Belt. He isn’t sad-

dled with the yesterday’s-man

foibles of Mr. Biden or with a rad-

ical medicare-for-all policy such

as Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren.

Given that tens of millions of

Americans would have to relin-

quish their private health-insur-

ance plans, it’s a high-risk issue.

National medicare, the critics say,

equals national nightmare.

It was expected that Mr. Butti-

gieg’s being gay might be a hand-

icap. But so far, there are few

signs. If the United States could

elect a black president, it could

elect a gay one, too.

Mr. Buttigieg’s military back-

ground (he served in Afghanis-

tan) gives him credibility on the

right. Intellectually, he’s second

to none – a Rhodes scholar with a

working knowledge of no less

than eight languages.

Weaknesses are his inexperi-

ence and his lack of traction thus

far with minority voters, a big

handicap.

It’s presumptuous for him to

think of becoming president at

such a tender age; he would be

the youngest ever. But the more

people see of him, his compo-

sure, his broad perspective, his

balance of mind, the more

they’re convinced he is excep-

tional. That’s why he’s gone from

an unknown with an unwieldy

name to the candidate with the

Big Mo.

He could have waited to go for

the top job until he has more sea-

soning, but because Mr. Trump is

in power, the timing is right. In

many ways, he is the perfect

counter to this President.

Mayor Pete is doing so well

that he said the other day that the

Democratic race is getting to be a

two-person fight between him-

self and Ms. Warren.

It isn’t. In fact, he walked the

comment back. But it’s well with-

in the realm of possibility that

the Democrats – and the country,

too – will turn to the long-shot

morality candidate the way they

did for Mr. Carter and Mr. Obama.

Themoralitycandidate:PeteButtigiegjustmightwinthisthing

LAWRENCE
MARTIN

OPINION

WASHINGTON

Democraticpresidential

candidateandmayorof

SouthBend,Ind.,Pete

Buttigiegspeaksatthe

IowaDemocraticWing

DinginClearLake,Iowa,

inAugust.JOHN LOCHER/

ASSOCIATED PRESS

I

n the overheated political
times in which we live, the
passage of legislation that will
arguably create even greater un-
certainty in the country’s re-
source development sector
might be considered poor tim-
ing.
Especially if thegovernment
responsible for the new law is
one viewed as a hostile enemy of
the province that most needs en-
ergy market roadblocks disman-
tled, not erected – Alberta. But
such is the fractured nature of
our federation these days.
Last week, legislation intro-
duced by British Columbia’s New
Democratic Party government
aimed at implementing the Unit-
ed Nations Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples (or
UNDRIP, as it’s more commonly
known) passed second reading.

It’s expected to receive royal as-

sent in the next few weeks.

This is landmark stuff. UN-

DRIP was adopted by 144 coun-

tries in 2007. Originally, one of

four countries that refused to

sign onto the accord, Canada re-

lented and became a signatory

three years later. The declaration

sets out the minimum standards

for the “survival, dignity and

well-being” of Indigenous peo-

ples around the world.

It comprises 46 articles, the

most contentious of which is No.

32: Governments (or agents)

must consult in good faith with

Indigenous peoples to obtain

their “free and informed con-

sent” prior to the approval of any

project affecting their lands and

territories.

There are some who have in-

terpreted this section as handing

First Nations the right to reject

resource development projects

that are not to their liking. For-

mer Saskatchewan premier Brad

Wall said Article 32 amounts to a

“de facto veto of natural resource

projects, potential pipelines ...

for our First Nations.” And that is

a common sentiment among

business types in Canada, who

believe certaingovernments are

doing enough as it is to destroy

resource development in this

country without bringing in ad-

ditional measures that could in-

troduce further delays to a

much-criticized approval proc-

ess.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau

committed to adopting UNDRIP

at the federal level. Legislation

was passed by the House of

Commons in 2018, but got stalled

in the Senate, where it died on

the order paper when the recent

election was called. Given the

current political climate, I some-

how doubt Mr. Trudeau will be

eager to reignite passage of the

bill any time soon.

My guess is there will be other

priorities.

It’s worth noting that the

Business Council of B.C. has en-

dorsed the provincial legislation.

The Opposition Liberals don’t

appear to have any interest in

thwarting its passage either. The

most common refrain I hear

from those you’d expect to be

most concerned about the law’s

impact is: The courts have al-

ready said that inherent Indige-

nous rights and titles exist. This

doesn’t supersede that assess-

ment.

I mostly subscribe to that

viewpoint. However, I think we

all know that the rights imbued

in the UN doctrine will at least

give First Nations more ammuni-

tion. And that ammunition will

be used to leverage their power

even more. Ultimately, that pow-

er will be tested in court.

Even B.C. Premier John Hor-

gan concedes that.

“We won’t know [the impact

UNDRIP will have] until the

courts advise us,” the Premier

told me during an interview in

his office. “There are going to be

subsets of nations or clans with-

in houses that will say I don’t

like this and they will inevitably

test these things in the courts.”

But the Premier told me he

has gone through the UN lan-

guage forward and backward

and while the words “free, prior

and informed consent” do exist,

the word “veto” does not.

“Consent is subjective and

that’s where the courts may have

an interpretation,” the Premier

said.

Ultimately, the question is:

How has the current system

worked in terms of getting cer-

tainty around resource develop-

ment? The answer can only be it

hasn’t, especially when it comes

to First Nations involvement. So

why not try a different metho-

dology?

Will it be the end of litigation?

No. But it will force parties to sit

down in a more meaningful way

that could help avoid the courts.

That said, it’s worth remem-

bering that most of B.C. was not

settled by treaties as was the case

elsewhere in the country. Conse-

quently, ownership to almost 100

per cent of the province is under

challenge by more than 200 First

Nations.

That, in itself, will always pose

the greatest threat to resource

development in the province.

And all the screaming and foot-

stomping by politicians in other

parts of the country will never

change that.

UNDRIPisyetanotherheadacheforJasonKenney

GARY
MASON

OPINION

VICTORIA