Month: November 2015

Emails: Vice Altered Story to Protect “Relationship” With Rogers

November 30, 2015

On October 30, 2014 Vice Canada and Rogers Communications announced a $100-million, three-year partnership. On November 17, 2014 Vice Canada published an article by freelancer Carly Lewis, “Inside the CBC’s Sexual Harassment Problems.” It was pitched and commissioned as a piece about incidents of sexism and harassment throughout Canadian media, and originally contained examples of alleged sexism at Rogers publishing and CTV. But by the time it was published, it dealt only with problems at the CBC.

An Open Letter From Furlong’s Accusers to Prime Minister Trudeau

November 27, 2015

John Furlong’s accusers are asking the federal government to listen to them.

In an open letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and two cabinet ministers, Cathy Woodgate and seven others who say Furlong abused them as children call for Trudeau to ask Furlong to step down from Own the Podium, a government-created and government-funded non-profit sports organization. John Furlong is the chair of its board of directors.

Woodgate et. al call the organization “Share the Podium” in their letter, a change which was made deliberately, CANADALAND is told.

Five of the undersigned have also written sworn affidavits detailing the abuse they say they endured. None of their claims have been tested in court and Furlong has denied all allegations.

CANADALAND presents the open letter, in full:
Burns Lake First Nations People and John Furlong

CANADALAND Take on Newfoundland ATIP Reform Technically Right, Spectacularly Wrong

November 25, 2015

On Friday, CANADALAND published a story headlined “How a Politician’s Childhood Helped Shape Freedom of Information Reform” and political geeks in Newfoundland and Labrador flipped out.

Individually, nearly every piece of information in reporter Jacob Boon’s story is correct.

Unfortunately, taken as a whole, the story is spectacularly wrong.

How a Politician’s Childhood Helped Shape Freedom of Information Reform

November 25, 2015

Read our follow-up to this piece here.
True, north, strong and free, Canada is worse at releasing public information than Mexico, Russia or Nigeria. We’re ranked 59 out of 102 countries, according to global access-to-information ratings by the Centre for Law and Democracy. Only two points separate Canada from Afghanistan.
We’re so bad at this that even governments within Canada are ranked higher.
If Newfoundland and Labrador was its own country, it would be 15th in the world for the right to information. Thanks to sweeping reforms the province passed back in June, Newfoundland is now one of the strongest global examples of access to information.
A lot of that can be traced back to Steve Kent’s childhood.
Kent is currently Deputy Premier with the province’s Progressive Conservative government, and was the Public Engagement minister who oversaw the recent overhaul of Newfoundland’s Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
He’s also adopted. Fourteen years ago, Kent applied for access to records in his adoption and child welfare file. He wanted to know his own past; where he had been in foster care, and who had been there with him. Instead, he ended up fighting the province for several years to ultimately end up with only a small portion of his own records.
“It was really about piecing together some of my own history,” Kent said. “Which, obviously, an individual should have the right to do.”
When reporters talk about ATIP problems, we’re usually speaking from personal experience. We’re self-centered like that. Navigating Canada’s obfuscated ATIP bureaucracy isn’t an immediate problem for most of the public, but it’s a daily challenge for journalists. But access to information goes beyond the media. This is a matter of national importance that Canada is utterly failing at, and it affects everyone right down to one Newfoundlander’s adoption.
“I know firsthand that access is important to individual citizens as well,” said Kent. “My own real life experience has helped me look at it through a unique lens, I guess.”
Every reporter has a horror story about a FOIPOP or ATIP request gone to hell. Months, if not years, waiting for a reply and exorbitant processing fees all to end up with a bundle of heavily-redacted pages. A recent audit by Newspapers Canada said the country’s access-to-information law is “effectively crippled.” Environment Canada, for example, took two months to release a list of the department’s Twitter accounts.
Why is Canada so bad at this? Partially, because we were so quick to adopt modern ATIP legislation. The Access to Information Act came into force in 1983. We were the 11th nation in the world to enact modern right-to-information laws. The standards and the world has since moved on, but Canada hasn’t.
“It’s great that we were an early adopter, but you then have to keep pace as the world moves forward,” said Michael Karanicolas, a senior legal officer for the Halifax-based Centre for Law and Democracy. The Centre works all over the world helping to draft access-to-information legislation and protect freedom of speech. They regularly update their global Right to Information Ranking, which scores 102 countries on 61 indicators broken down into seven categories. It’s that scoring system that places a nationalized Newfoundland at 15th, and Canada at 59th.
“This is an important democratic indicator,” said Karanicolas. “If Canada was 59th on gender equality. If Canada was 59th on environmental protection. I mean, these are core issues and I think the public would be outraged about it and we should be outraged here.”
Given that the top 10 countries in the CLD’s ratings all adopted their legislation after 2000 (many within the last five years), Karanicolas said Canada’s antique ATIP system is long overdue for an overhaul. There are too many exceptions, too many loopholes for non-disclosure and too many overly broad definitions for the Access to Information Act to be effective.
Compare and contrast with what’s happened in Newfoundland and Labrador. The newly passed ATIPPA legislation eliminated applcation fees and drastically reduced costs for access requests. Time frames shrunk from 30 calendar days to 20 business days and all readily available records need to be released in 10 business days.
The new law also expanded the powers of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Extensions can now only be applied if the Commissioner believes them to be reasonably required. All formal appeals have to be dealt with in 65 business days, and should the public body disagree with the Commissioner’s recommendations it must seek a declaration from the courts stating that it is not required to comply.
The new regulations haven’t made everyone comfortable. Politicians know very well the challenges that come with more accountability, more access to information. Stronger legislation means you’re more likely to be caught, and more ammunition for your opponents.
“It is against their interests to have strong transparency laws,” said Karanicolas. “You see political parties promising the world, promising to enact this stuff…when they’re campaigning, and then completely forgetting that promise when they get into office.”
With that said, Karanicolas and Kent are both optimistic about the new federal government’s promises. The Liberals’ campaign platform pledged to update ATIP standards in Canada, including eliminating all fees save the initial $5 filing charge and expanding the Act to apply to the Prime Minister’ and Ministers’ Offices. They also promised to undertake a full legislative review of the Act every five years.
Should all that actually happen, Justin Trudeau will be the first Prime Minister to update Canada’s Access to Information Act since it was enacted by his father’s government.
On a smaller scale, Newfoundland’s example could pressure other provinces to reform their own legislation. Steve Kent hopes it will. He’s committed to open government, having experienced the opposite firsthand while trying to unearth his past. Closure isn’t the right word for the result of that endeavor, he said, but he did find some answers. It just “shouldn’t have been a battle.”
The Deputy Premier is now dealing with fights beyond his adoption records. He’s currently facing Liberal challenger Randy Simms for the Mount Pearl North riding in Newfoundland and Labrador’s November 30 election.
Win or lose, Kent’s helped ensure a more open and accountable government for every Newfoundlander. Now the rest of Canada just needs to catch up.
“The good and the bad and the ugly; regardless the public has a right to know,” he said. “All Canadians should have equal access, and all governments in our federation should be open by default.”

Police in Western Canada Don’t Collect, Release Racial Data

November 25, 2015

One evening in December 2014, Simon Ash-Moccasin, an Indigenous playwright, actor and activist, was walking home through inner city Regina when he was stopped by police officers. After refusing to tell them where he was going (“I didn’t have to tell him where I was going because I know my rights,” he later wrote), he was pushed against a wall, handcuffed and shoved face-first into a police cruiser only to be released soon after without charge.
The officers never read him his rights. He documented minor injuries in a doctor’s report the following day. Ash-Moccasin filed numerous complaints with the police department, police college and other public bodies, and wrote about his experience in Briarpatch Magazine.
“I felt like I was being harassed and that I was being racially profiled,” he wrote. “I’ve listened to countless similar stories about those same cops, and other cops too, that have gone against protocols.”
In an open letter published in May 2015 in response to community activists who raised concerns about police brutality, the Regina Police Service stated: “The Regina Police Service does not engage in racial or youth profiling although the Service maintains (as mandated) detailed records of incidents of reported crime and investigations.”
So, wherein lies the truth? Is Ash-Moccasin’s experience part of a larger trend of racial profiling Indigenous people in cities like Regina, as he believes? The answer is, we don’t know. And neither do the police.
These are the questions our team of reporters and data journalists at Discourse Media set out to investigate in September, in collaboration with Maclean’s associate editor Nancy Macdonald, who authored an explosive cover story calling Winnipeg the most racist city in Canada. While reporting in Regina and Winnipeg, we heard many anecdotal stories about similar police conduct — but were they isolated incidents?
Inspired in part by Toronto Star investigations and Desmond Cole’s Toronto Life story about the impact of “carding” on black Torontonians, we began investigating whether Indigenous people are more likely than non-Indigenous Canadians to be stopped or detained in western Canadian cities. After consulting social scientists who have studied racial profiling, we asked police departments in Regina, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Vancouver to provide racial data related to public intoxication and drug possession — offences that are not consistently enforced, leaving enforcement up to the discretion of officers.
Many weeks later, we have no police data to help us understand what is happening on the street in these cities — and little hope of ever obtaining any. Not one of the eight Freedom of Information (FOI) requests we sent turned up a viable source of data. The Edmonton police estimated that preparing the data would cost us $7,693, a figure out of the reach of our small journalism startup. (The Toronto Star obtained carding data from police after a years-long legal battle, a scenario that is increasingly less likely as fewer and fewer resources are available for investigative journalism.)
Sadly, our experience is all too common. A study published in the Canadian Journal of Law and Society shows police routinely suppress racial data when reporting annual crime reports to Ottawa. The research, led by Nipissing University assistant professor Paul Millar (who advised our investigation), calls the practice “whitewashing.” The few journalists who have succeeded in accessing data through the FOI process have waged lengthy and expensive battles.
So why is racial policing data so difficult to obtain when it is crucial for understanding whether police are treating minorities in an equitable way?
For one, police officers are not required to collect information about suspects’ race or ethnic group, and are therefore inconsistent in noting this information when they stop or detain an individual. This makes systematic data collection nearly impossible. Alberta, for example, does not collect any ethnicity-related information for public intoxication tickets. Ethnic information is noted in some cases of drug-related offences, but not all. Individuals’ criminal records kept at the Edmonton Police Departments identify their race only 13 per cent of the time.
Other police departments refuse to participate in the FOI process altogether.
In a letter from the Regina Police Service in response to our FOI request, a legal counsel explained the service is exempted from the Saskatchewan Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act because the definition of a “local authority” does not include police. In other words, the Chief of Police gets to decide whether to respond to an FOI request, or not. He instructed the service to decline our request.
But why suppress this information? If police departments are serious about efforts to prevent or curb racial profiling, as the Regina Police Service argued in its statement, shouldn’t they track this information? At the very least, wouldn’t understanding as much as possible about who is engaged in criminal activity help police do their job?
A spokesperson for the Edmonton police department said racial data doesn’t significantly inform their policing work, and that they don’t see racial profiling as being an issue on their force. But how can a police department claim no racial profiling exists without data to show one way or another?
Even Statistics Canada can’t access reliable racial data from police. The agency gathers data to inform policy making and community policing program planning. The Uniform Crime Reporting Survey has been collecting a crime census from over 1,200 separate police detachments since 1962, including criminal incidents, clearance status and information about the people involved, including Aboriginal status. We contacted the statistics department to access their available data, but we were told that the indicator of Aboriginal status is so inconsistently collected by police departments that it is effectively impossible to ensure an accurate count.
Despite the lack of reliable data, incidents like Ash-Moccasin’s are not unique to Regina. In September 2015, two First Nation Chiefs in Edmonton decried racial profiling for undermining reconciliation efforts.
And yet, officials continue to dismiss allegations as isolated events.
“We would not presume to argue with the individual experiences and feelings of another person,” read Regina Police Chief Troy Hagen’s open letter to the community, “However, we also know these negative experiences make up a very small percentage of the total number of interactions we have with the public each year.” But do they really know? Journalists certainly can’t substantiate that claim.
***
The full findings, based on surveys conducted by Discourse Media with the support of the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, will be published as part of Nancy Macdonald’s investigation into the justice system in Maclean’s in December.

“I Remember John Furlong”

November 25, 2015

John Furlong, a man accused of abusing aboriginal children, is staging a comeback. His accusers, now grown, have been excluded from national media coverage of his return to public life.

In what has become a battle between John Furlong and Laura Robinson, the voices of eight First Nations individuals have been excluded, omitted and ignored. Yet none of them have recanted their allegations.

CANADALAND presents their words now.

Reporter Who Quit Over “NDP Whore” Article Speaks Up

November 21, 2015

A Moose Jaw Times-Herald reporter has resigned over her article being killed by the paper. It alleged that Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski called a woman an “NDP whore,” but he claims he used the word “horde” instead.
Mickey Djuric said she wanted to write a story about a video she took at a rally, but after assuring her the piece will be published, the Times-Herald staff changed their mind.

Djuric said she knew she was going to resign as soon as she was told the story will never see light of day. Djuric originally pitched it Thursday and said her higher-ups had no problem with the idea. But when she came in on Tuesday to file it, plans have already changed.

At first she was told the story was pushed back to avoid getting lost in the coverage of Brad Wall’s refugee announcement, but then it was killed altogether.

“I told him the public has a right to know that this video exists, let the public be the jury on this matter,” Drujic said in a phone interview. “We all heard in our newsroom that he said, ‘NDP whore.’ There were 30 people who listened to it and we all heard the same thing. I told him that if we felt uncomfortable about being sued, if we appoached it in the right way we wouldn’t be liable.”

We were unable to get comment from the managing editor of the Times-Herald, but CANADALAND has obtained an email outlining reasoning for the decision.

“I kind of knew in that moment that my ethics and morals as a journalist were asked to be compromised and I didn’t want to be part of that,” she said.

She came in early this morning to clean her desk and get everything ready for her resignation. She told Managing Editor Craig Slater that she is quitting, effective immediately. “And he was like, ‘Wow, ok’ and that was it,” she says. You can read the resignation letter in its entirety on Djuric’s website.

When the video was taken Tom Lukiwski, who has made homophobic comments previously, was speaking in support Greg Lawrence of the Saskatchewan Party. Lukiwski told Djuric he said “horde” not “whore.”

CANADALAND has reached out for comment to both Tom Lukiwski and Craig Slater. The phone calls and emails were not returned as of time of publication.

There’s a Canadian News Hall of Fame and We’re Pretty Sure It’s Real

November 12, 2015

The Canadian News Hall of Fame has no hall, no wall, and many people in it are not that famous. A CANADALAND investigation reveals that we are at least 60% sure it actually exists.
You might not be able to visit it (and really, let’s take a sober moment and imagine the visitor count if it existed), but for a cool $250 you can attend a gala and watch the organization welcome two more veteran media journalists into its fold.

Where do you even start with the ‘canadian news hall of fame.’ pic.twitter.com/XTvnNOIBV1
— Josh Visser (@joshvisser) November 10, 2015
At least, we’re pretty sure you can. A look into the Canadian News Hall of Fame, inspired by the above poster, brought up more questions than it answered. Where is the hall of fame? Does it have a website? Who are the men running it? And why is one of the email addresses quaich@bell.ca? Is the Toronto Press and Media club even real? We tried to get to the bottom of it.
It turns out that next Tuesday, CBC’s Peter Mansbridge and Postmedia’s Paul Godfrey will be inducted into the Canadian News Hall of Fame at its annual gala in downtown Toronto. If the 160-person, sold-out event is anything like years’ previous, it promises to be a real party. Last year’s event, sponsored by the Toronto Star, honoured Torstar chair John Honderich and CTV chief political correspondent Craig Oliver, and had the newly elected Premier Kathleen Wynne as a celebrated guest. This year’s main sponsors are Postmedia and RioCan.

Paul Godfrey “soon to be installed in the Canadian News Hall of Fame for his contribution to Canadian journalism” — LOL, as the kids say
— Jeet Heer (@HeerJeet) November 10, 2015

Mr. Godfrey, soon to be installed in the Canadian News Hall of Fame for his contribution to Canadian journalism’ Why? Who votes for this?
— gnomeoffender (@gnomeoffender) November 9, 2015
Our efforts to find out more about the organization first led us to its website with the hope of learning how the winners are chosen. It gives an error message (a Facebook post from last year says a new site is under construction), but longtime organizer and president of The Toronto Press and Media Club, Ed Patrick, said in an email that the selection process is simple. The group invites nominations and those nominations are distributed to a list of selectors where they are ranked and awarded points. The two nominees with the highest number of points are selected for induction that year.
“It has always been done in this fashion,” he said.
“The selectors are mainly retired journalists and members of the News Hall of Fame. Current selectors include: Murray Burt, Trina McQueen, Lloyd Robertson, Andy Walsh, Boris Spremo, Les Pyette, Craig Oliver and John Honderich,” said Patrick. “At one time we had selectors from almost every province, but as they passed on they were not replaced by a suitable candidate in their province.”

About time! RT @CTVNationalNews: Craig Oliver Inducted into Canadian News Hall of Fame http://t.co/mo8pTfumlU pic.twitter.com/km252cyQMF”
— Taylor Curley (@tay_curley) October 16, 2014
The Canadian News Hall of Fame has been a thing since 1965 and has honoured over 100 important Canadian journalists and media contributors in that time, although it took a break from handing out plaques in the early aughts — at the same time as it grappled with hard times in the organization and its founding club, The Toronto Press Club (now known as the Toronto Press and Media Club).
In 2011, the organization’s founder and president, Ed Patrick, who is also in charge of a malt whiskey appreciation society, the Quaich, faced backlash from outside journalists over how the Hall of Fame was being run. The drama included an article in the Toronto Star, which, according to a release on Patrick’s website from October of last year, led to Patrick launching libel action against the Star and winning a retraction and apology in 2014. The dispute was over the facts of the article itself. According to the press release, it was “full of mistakes.”
Here’s what Patrick tweeted after his libel victory:

Celebrating winning an apology from Stacey Chopak in a libel action. Moral: Don’t believe everything you read in the newspapers!
— Ed Patrick (@CanadaQuaich) October 8, 2014
Shortly after celebrating his libel action against the Star, Patrick was celebrating at the Canadian News Hall of Fame 2014 Gala sponsored by the very same paper. The awards had been back on since 2012, even though there still wasn’t a wall of fame.
The lack of a way to view the plaques still irks veteran journalist John Miller, author of The Journalism Doctor blog and writer of a 2011 post questioning the future of the Canadian News Hall of Fame. Miller was a member of the ad hoc committee of journalists that tried to shake things up at the organization that same year.
“We were not members of the press club, just journalists concerned that the hall of fame was packed away in someone’s closet and hadn’t installed anyone for years,” said Miller in an email Tuesday.
“[I do not] have any confidence that members of the public will ever be able to view plaques or visit the Canadian News Hall of Fame, thereby rendering it useless,” he said.
He said his group tried to get the organization to “be more active and accountable to the journalistic community,” but the group stopped meeting after a “hostile” reception by Patrick and his colleagues.
Miller also questioned the legitimacy of the awards. “It is not clear how new members are chosen. I have no evidence that convinces me that these awards are legitimate at the present time. None of the organizers appear to have any journalistic credentials that qualify them to choose new members,” he said.
But “at least they are adding people again,” said Miller.
Patrick dismissed Miller’s criticism, noting “John Miller was part of the group that wanted to take over the News Hall of Fame. They were mightily pissed off when the TPC declined to hand it over to them.”
Patrick said the organization is raising money through the gala so it can eventually have a physical space to showcase the Canadian News Hall of Fame plaques and other historical artifacts. He refutes the suggestion that the organization was ever in disarray and said the group would continue to operate the News Hall of Fame until it found a sponsor and a suitable location for the hall.
“At one time, INCO Ltd. was the sole sponsor of the Hall and paid all the costs of running it,” said Patrick. “When the Ontario Club folded, we lost our press club room, which housed the hall plaques. These have been in storage ever since, while we hunted for a new location. Ideally, it should be housed in a Downtown Toronto location where journalism students and the public at large would have access to it. The City of Toronto and Ryerson University were unable to offer us space for it. We continue to search for a sponsor and a suitable location. White Knights are few and far between these days.”
2015 News Hall of Fame Leaflet


@AnnaKillen

Peter Mansbridge Officiated the Wedding of Justin Trudeau’s Director of Communications

November 11, 2015

Did you see Peter Mansbridge’s report on Justin Trudeau? Yes, the one where they ride on a bus.

Meltdown at the Walrus

November 4, 2015

DISCLOSURE: One of the authors of this piece, Jesse Brown, once wrote an article for the Walrus. He experienced no professional conflict with any of the people mentioned in this piece.
A public dispute between a freelance writer and a recently terminated managing editor at the Walrus has motivated a series of allegations and revelations about the chaotic inner workings of the national literary magazine. Employees past and present described an organization in disarray. As Walrus publisher Shelley Ambrose herself put it in an internal email sent to editor-in-chief Jon Kay last month and provided to CANADALAND, “we have never been this disorganized,” and “we are in a bit of a melt down.”
CANADALAND spoke with 19 current and former Walrus employees, ranging from unpaid interns to former editor-in-chief John Macfarlane. Our discussions reveal allegations of workplace bullying and verbal abuse, an accusation of editorial theft, a rash of exits from the magazine by a trio of senior editors and others, controversial firings, and a widely felt “toxic” work environment known to management who disregarded frequent pleas for an end to an intimidating and exploitative office culture.
THE FACT-CHECKER

Sarah Taggart was supposed to work at the Walrus until April 17, 2015. But, she was fired. Kyle Wyatt, her supervisor and managing editor of the Walrus, told her she “just wasn’t a good fit,” and “wasn’t working out.” Taggart was never given more concrete reasons for her dismissal, but she thinks she knows why she was let go.
Taggart was hired into the competitive Chawkers Fellowship program, created to provide junior-level, fixed-term fact-checking jobs at a rate of a bit more than $11/hour. The Chawkers Fellowship was initiated in 2014 to replace the Walrus’ unpaid internship program, which was abolished after a labour board crackdown.
She said her first couple of weeks, while Wyatt was away, were like “a vacation” compared to the rest of her tenure. She had a good team of three other fellows led by former copy editor Carol Hilton and she enjoyed the job. But when Wyatt returned to the office, Taggart said “it got scary.”
As a fact-checker, Taggart had to make sure every detail in an article was correct before it was sent to the printer. It’s meticulous work which got more demanding when Wyatt came back to the leading role. Taggart said Wyatt’s expectations went beyond reasonable. Because the Walrus wouldn’t pay Chawkers fellows for more than 35 hours work per week, Wyatt berated the young fact-checkers if they were in the office too early or too late, and berated them again if they failed to complete their tasks. According to Taggart, his demands were impossible to meet.
She saw herself and her colleagues being bullied and victimised. There were yelling, lecturing, and intimidation, she said. Eight of CANADALAND’s sources for this story said the words “verbally abusive” and “bullying” are accurate descriptions of Kyle Wyatt’s behaviour. Four sources say they cried at the office because of him. A different former employee tells CANADALAND “I felt personally bullied by [Wyatt]” and that “I heard him say rude, insulting, threatening things to unpaid interns,” including a threat to one intern that he would disparage her to her future employers if her work did not improve.
When another Fellow came to work a few hours early to finish a demanding assignment from the day before, Wyatt yelled at her. Taggart found her co-worker at a nearby cafe, in tears and ready to quit.
When later that day, at a team meeting, there was an invitation for discussion on how the workplace can be improved, Taggart took the opportunity to stand up for herself and the other Fellows. She told Wyatt “We can’t work with this kind of treatment and if you’re nicer we’d probably produce better work.” Taggart said Wyatt’s response was, “I’m sorry, but I’m not going to change but if you have a problem with the way things are around here you’re going to have to think about that.”
That was on October 10, 2014. On October 14, Wyatt called Taggart into his office, told her she wasn’t “working out,” and terminated her contract. She never received an explanation.
Kyle Wyatt was fired last Thursday, October 22. No official reason was provided and the Walrus management did not respond to the question why he was fired. In an interview with CANADALAND, Wyatt said “the position changed,” but did not give concrete grounds for his dismissal. He said the managing editor position was different going forward and the editor-in-chief is free to reimagine it as he sees fit. Jon Kay declined to comment for legal reasons.
Including Sarah Taggart, eight of Wyatt’s former co-workers have described him as abusive and a bully. Long-term colleagues say they have approached management about Wyatt’s behaviour on multiple occasions, including publisher Shelley Ambrose, then-publisher and editor-in-chief John Macfarlane and current editor in chief Jon Kay. Four sources said Wyatt treated women more harshly than men. It is unclear whether the Walrus management spoke to Wyatt about his behaviour, but they were aware of the complaints.
Taggart informed Jon Kay of Wyatt’s behaviour at a lunch meeting on December 7, 2014, and another source tells CANADALAND that several employees complained to Macfarlane about Wyatt years ago. Others still told CANADALAND management learned during exit interviews that Kyle Wyatt was a motivating factor in some employee’s departures.
Wyatt himself denied the allegations. He doesn’t think he treats women differently than men and describes himself as a tough but fair boss. He provided CANADALAND with names of former colleagues he feels he got along with.
Three of these former Walrus employees do indeed speak well of Wyatt. Michael Strizic, a former intern and now a marketing professional, said he was a “fair, capable, and competent boss” and two female former interns said he took on a mentorship role. They do not deny he was tough, but said as their superior he took their education seriously.
THE WRITER

Trouble at the Walrus wasn’t isolated to Taggart’s story. Over the course of the last year, at least 10 people left from both the editorial and foundation sides. The words “toxic work environment” came up in many interviews CANADALAND conducted. It’s not just employees who complained, but writers too.
Alex Gillis, a seasoned journalist and a university instructor, is one of those writers. He worked with the Walrus on an investigative 6,000-word cover story about cheating in Canadian universities. Gillis said the first draft was well-received but after submitting the second draft he got an ultimatum, “They’d kill the story unless I let them rewrite the piece.” According to Gillis there was no explanation of why the story was killed or what was wrong with the draft.
Gillis was told that Wyatt and Kay wanted to turn the article into an essay and reluctantly agreed. This investigation took months and Gillis didn’t want his work wasted, “but Wyatt said that he and his colleagues would completely rewrite my story, turning it into an essay from start to finish, with no input from me, even though my name would be on it. It was hands-down the weirdest experience I’ve had with an editor in 20 years of writing,” Gillis told CANADALAND.
During the kill fee negotiations, Wyatt asked whether the Walrus can retain research done for the story for an extra 25 per cent on the kill fee for a total of 75 per cent of the price of the article. Gillis provided CANADALAND with a part of the phone call discussing the article.

This is the transcription:

Alex Gillis: I don’t know, it sounds kinda weird, but if that’s how you guys do it, then that’s fine.
Kyle Wyatt: Yeah, I mean, it’s–
AG: I’ll sell it somewhere else. I mean, it’s my material. I’m gonna write a book about it. I’m assuming you’re not gonna publish a story like this in the next nine months or twelve months? I mean, it’s my story, so. I mean, are you guys writing a story like this, or running something?
KW: Uh… I mean, as I said, if you were interested in a slightly higher kill fee, we would retain your research and–
AG: Well no, that’s not worth it. I can– I’m have to– I’m gonna retain my material cause I have to resell it.
KW: Sure
AG: I’m taking a huge loss– I mean, the $6,000 wasn’t even covering my time. I put more time in than that. So, yeah, I’ll take the kill fee and keep my material and publish it somewhere else in some form.
KW: Sure.
AG: But I’m asking you, are you gonna take my idea and write your own story? Assign it to someone else?
KW: Uh, that’s not our plan.
AG: No? Okay, thanks.

“Six weeks later,” recalled Gillis, “the Walrus comes in my mailbox. I open it up, and there’s my story on the cover, but Kyle Wyatt wrote it… They cheated on a story about cheating.”

“Instead, I chose the harder path: honesty. … Upholding a time-honoured scholars’ code filled me with pride.”
– from “Busted” by Kyle Wyatt, Walrus magazine, November 2015 issue. 
Frustrated by his experience, Gillis posted about it on a Toronto writer’s forum where others weighed in. At least three writers responded with complaints about the Walrus’ kill fee — an issue then picked up by writer advocacy groups and on Twitter.

I had a story killed by the Walrus before. They weren’t happy with the draft (which is cool) but I’d put months + $100s of cash into it.
— Justin Ling (@Justin_Ling) October 29, 2015
The following is a part Kay’s response to Gillis’ concerns (you can read the full response here):

“Hi everyone. Walrus editor Jonathan Kay here. I am the fellow whom David Hayes (our moderator, yes?) seems to have been referring to when he alluded to “people who aren’t magazine professionals run magazines.” Guilty as charged, alas. I was a newspaper guy for 16 years before I got picked to run the Walrus. It has been a steep learning curve for me. But thanks to the efforts of seasoned colleagues such as my friend Matt McKinnon (hi Matt!), I like to think I am getting up to speed.
Mr. Gillis — I’m sorry you had such a bad experience. My understanding of events is different than yours. But I have been reporting on news long enough to know that people of good faith often see and remember things in a different way. (Moreover, I was one editor removed in the process, since your point of contact was my then-colleague Kyle Wyatt.) If you have the time and inclination to meet, I’m guessing we can address your concerns in a less adversarial way. I’m sure I have plenty to learn from the episode. The world of magazines and newspapers have different unwritten rules governing the interaction between writers and editors. I need to make sure I know them.”
One thing I would like to add: Whatever may have been the role of the handling editor in this episode (who parted ways with the Walrus as of yesterday), 100% of the responsibility for what happened lies with me. I was the EIC who okayed the decisions at play here.

Alex Gillis has spoken to both Wyatt and Kay since posting to the forum on October 23. He said Kay admitted to “unethical” behaviour by the Walrus in the handling of his story, and reiterated his apology. CANADALAND asked Gillis whether he felt satisfied by Kay’s response.
“I sort of don’t, actually,” he replied.
THE EDITOR IN CHIEF

Jon Kay was a controversial hire for the Walrus. His politics veered to the right, and many staffers worried that he would impose them on the magazine. But many expressed relief about Kay to CANADALAND, recalling that once he was established, he proved himself to be an open and friendly manager. He is well-regarded for seeking input broadly and breaking down the internal elitism that excluded many employees from story meetings. He encouraged new ideas and pitches from all employees, and was humble about the challenge he faced as a newspaper editor learning how to edit a magazine.

Well, there goes The Walrus.
— Jeet Heer (@HeerJeet) October 29, 2014
In an interview Kay conducted with CANADALAND in January 2015 at the Walrus’ offices, shortly after assuming his post as editor in chief, Kay described his priorities as increasing the online presence and bringing to the magazine a more personal, ironic tone, to counter the conception of a dull periodical. Most staffers welcomed the changes.
Yet Kay’s tenure has been a rocky one. According to Kyle Wyatt, Kay killed more stories in the last ten months than his predecessor killed in four years prior, a claim that jibes with what CANADALAND has learned from other sources. All three of the magazine’s senior editors left since Kay joined, along with at least eight other employees from various departments. In addition to Alex Gillis, other freelance writers and one writer’s agent have expressed frustration and concern with how the magazine has been dealing with external journalists. Staffers told CANADALAND their eyebrows were raised over how many pieces ended up being written by Jon Kay and Kyle Wyatt themselves, and how these decisions made everyone’s work more difficult.
Last month, Walrus publisher Shelley Ambrose sent Kay the following stern email about his performance. CANADALAND was provided this document by recently terminated Managing Editor Kyle Wyatt:
Editor’s note: “Shipping” a magazine means sending it to the printer. 

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Shelley Ambrose <*********@walrusmagazine.com> wrote:
Dear Jon – I hate to do this by email instead of in person but we are in a bit of a melt down here…we have never been this disorganized and late shipping……at least half the mag should have shipped by now – and the art department and editors are melting down. It is just not possible to ship everything at the last minute. All kinds of deadlines are being missed and we are lacking in forward planning – which means this is likely to happen again for the next issue. Half the magazine should have shipped by now (which allows us to deal with last minute stuff…like a whole new cover story). I know the sced has been thrown out the window…but the result is no one – from the fact-checkers to the art department – knows what is coming down the pipe when…and the pipe is only so wide – it simply cannot accommodate everything at once. And, we cannot tax people (unless it is you and Kyle) so much that they are working nights and weekends…only to wake up next Wednesday and be behind on the next issue…..and do it all again.
Kyle is, of course, confident that we can get this done but this cannot be the new normal. We’ve got to get back on track for assigning out early and often, getting the pieces in on time and early enough to move through the pipe. It is fine to have one late breaking piece – or maybe even two…but not the whole issue. It just won’t work – we don’t have enough hands on deck to do it all in five days. We have to keep our standards very high – and that takes time during production. Careful editing (much more careful than newspapers – plus tighten and polish – we are the best magazine in the country so the quality for the writing and editing must be superb and that takes time and talent), careful design and a lot of advance planning time for art is necessary for a magazine like The Walrus. Kyle can get us back on track but we’re going to have to have a proper production schedule with enough lead time – on the assignment front and on the production front – or the whole thing will derail and fast. We cannot be late shipping. And we can’t edit everything at one, fact-check everything at once, ship everything at once. And we can’t ship second rate stuff…….
And, sorry to repeat, you need to be here during production week (which goes from Wed to Wed). It is not possible to do this remotely…..
I know this is a big learning curve but my bells are ringing. We are short staffed as it is – and some of the editorial staff is new so slow – so the pressure – as I know you know – is enormous……..but we need to make this work….yes, we’ve been turning our head to the website (which is great) but we need to turn our head back to print.
And we can’t have the managing editor writing the cover piece in five days while also shipping…even if he says he can do it…it is not a good plan.
The next one cannot be like this……I understand you are trying to build in flexibility and also to be as current as possible …but we seem to have thrown out the baby with the bath water.
Meantime, we need all hands on deck.

THE PUBLISHER

Shelley Ambrose is herself a controversial figure among Walrus employees past and present. According to former copy editor Pamela Capraru, the forceful Ambrose is “like a bull in a china shop” among the mild personalities on staff at a literary magazine. Two former employees say Ambrose is prone to irrational fits of yelling and blame when stressed. She is accused by one former employee of interfering in editorial matters, in one instance overruling fact-checkers and inserting a correction when an influential contact of Ambrose’s called her to demand one.
Yet Ambrose is regarded by employees past and present as the Walrus’ saviour. When she joined in 2006, the magazine was in dire financial shape. As a registered charity, the Walrus Foundation had but one donor: the Chawkers Foundation, the philanthropic organization run by the wealthy family of Walrus co-founder Ken Alexander.
Ambrose, a dynamic and forceful personality, expanded that donor list to include Enbridge, SunCor, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, RBC and other major corporate players.
She evolved the Walrus into a multi-platform brand encompassing online content, Walrus TV and the Walrus Talks event series.  According to the alumni magazine of Ambrose’s alma matter, Western University, “she is the Walrus. Really.”
Ambrose has reportedly been rewarded accordingly. Two former Walrus employees with credible knowledge of internal budgets tell CANADALAND that when John Macfarlane left the Walrus in 2014, Shelley Ambrose went from co-publisher to sole publisher and gave herself a raise of at least $70,000, bringing her total compensation to over $200,000 per year. In an organization that was fined by the Ontario government for exploiting unpaid interns, and where the staff increasingly under resourced and underpaid, this disparity has bred resentment.
Shelley Ambrose did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
THE EDITOR EMERITUS

Kyle Wyatt was hired by John Macfarlane, a magazine industry veteran and former Walrus editor and co-publisher who, since retiring, is now listed as the Walrus’ “Editor Emeritus.”  Multiple sources tell CANADALAND that Wyatt was a protégé of Macfarlane’s.
We approached him for comment. Here are those emails:
Jesse Brown <jesse@canadalandshow.com> wrote:
Hi John,
Two questions I must ask you on the record:
When you were with the Walrus, did you at any point learn that Kyle Wyatt was considered abusive by any employee?
When Chawkers fellow Sarah Taggart was fired and asked to meet with you, why did you decline?
Thanks,
Jesse
John Macfarlane <**********@gmail.com> wrote:

I’m not going to be dragged into this ,Jesse. But, off the record, it’s my experience that the word “abusive” is thrown around rather carelessly these days. John
John Macfarlane
Editor Emeritus
The Walrus

Jesse Brown <jesse@canadalandshow.com> wrote:
As you must know John, off-the-record status is something that must be agreed to by both source and reporter.
I asked you a question and explicitly specified that it was an on-the-record inquiry. You answered, but asserted that your answer be left off-the-record.
I did not and would not agree to this, and I consider your answer to be publishable and attributable to you.
That said, if you would like to add-to or revise your reply, you certainly have an opportunity to do so.
Best,
Jesse

John Macfarlane <**********@gmail.com> wrote:
As you wish, Jesse.
FUTURE ISSUES
Whatever complaints Walrus staffers have about Jon Kay, many expressed relief and admiration that he accomplished one thing his predecessor could (or would) not: parting ways with Kyle Wyatt.
Others worry about the repercussions of a possible scandal — donors and corporate partners fund the Walrus in order to benefit from the association with a perceived intellectual brand, a worthy forum for arts and letters. How will banks and oil companies feel if the Walrus instead becomes synonymous with workplace abuse of underpaid grad students and theft of intellectual property?
One former employee expressed uncertainty.
“Either Shelley and Jon are both in big trouble,” they said, “or nobody’s going to care. I can see it going either way.”
***
Our coverage of the Walrus continues in the Monday, Nov.2nd episode of CANADALAND, where Sarah Taggart, Alex Gillis and Kyle Wyatt will be interviewed. 
jesse@canadalandshow.com and jane@canadalandshow.com