Radio host Tasha Kheiriddin will moderate March 8th women’s panel in Ottawa to celebrate women and discuss poll findings. March 7, 2017 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE OTTAWA – The idea of having the same number of men and women sitting in the federal cabinet or Parliament isn’t an automatic winner with Canadian women, according to a new poll for public policy think tank Cardus. A plurality of women (45%) said having that form of simple gender parity in politics did not matter to them, while 40% of women said it did. That compares with almost seven in 10 men who said it didn’t matter and only 23% who said it did. Overall, 57% of Canadians tell Angus Reid Forum that having the same number of men and women sitting in the federal cabinet or Parliament did not matter to them. Andrea Mrozek, program director for Cardus Family, says she sees a need for new thinking on women’s equality. “I think this is one indicator that many people – including many women – feel simple numerical equality in Parliament or federal cabinet isn’t a magic bullet,” said Mrozek. Dr. Beth Green, program director for Cardus Education, says the poll’s findings are thought provoking. “I’m keen to hear from our panel on Wednesday about what they think about gender parity, and how it fits in with broader efforts to value and honour women’s contributions to public life,” said Dr. Green. Dr. Green and Andrea Mrozek will co-host an International Women’s Day event taking place at the Ottawa offices of Cardus on the evening of March 8, 2017. Tasha Kheiriddin, a Toronto radio host named one of Canada’s 100 Most Powerful Women in 2016 by the Women’s Executive Network, will serve as moderator for a panel of four women from diverse backgrounds who will discuss the poll’s findings and other issues regarding women’s flourishing in Canada. The poll asked several additional questions, finding that that Canadians don’t fit easily into clear ideological categories on women’s issues: Feminist Diversity Canadians told the pollster that feminism needed to be open to a diversity of views – even on controversial issues. When asked whether one could “be a feminist and pro-life” 57% of women said yes. That contrasts with 47% of men who agreed. “Clearly there is no cardboard cut-out position on women’s issues,” said Mrozek. “International Women’s Day is the perfect time to underline that Canadian women, in particular, believe mainstream feminism is a big enough tent to include those who are pro-life.” Women’s Advancement Do Canadians believe women are held back because they are women? 44% of Canadians answered that question with a yes. On this question, however, there was a clearer divide between the sexes with 57% of women agreeing that women are held back, while only 31% of men said the same. Motherhood Men and women are also divided on the question of whether mothers and motherhood are valued highly enough in Canada today. When asked, 52% of women said motherhood was not valued highly enough, while only 39% of men said the same. “It’s troubling that a majority of women feel that they are held back because they are women and that motherhood is not valued highly enough in Canada,” said Dr. Green. “I think it’s worth exploring whether valuing motherhood more highly could lead to women feeling less marginalized.” Sisterhood Clear majorities of both men and women agree that there isn’t one person or organization that can credibly claim to represent Canadian women. Sixty percent of Canadian women and 61% of Canadian men said no one person or organization could speak on Canadian women’s behalf. Complete poll results are available for download here. Poll Methodology From February 24th to February 26th 2017 an online survey was conducted among 1,025 randomly selected Canadian adults who are Angus Reid Forum panelists. The margin of error, which measures sampling variability, is +/- 3.1%, 19 times out of 20. The results have been statistically weighted according to education, age, gender and region (and in Quebec, language) Census data to ensure a sample representative of the entire adult population of Canada. Discrepancies in or between totals are due to rounding. -30- MEDIA INQUIRIES Daniel Proussalidis Cardus – Director of Communications 613.241.4500 x.508 dproussalidis@cardus.ca

ONTARIO CAN DO MORE TO HELP FOLKS TRAPPED BY PAYDAY LOANS Cardus Work & Economics Program Director Brian Dijkema offers research-backed testimony on payday loan reforms to committee at Ontario legislature February 27, 2017 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE HAMILTON – The Ontario government’s Putting Consumers First Act (Bill 59) takes some positive steps on payday loans, but also leaves out several important measures that could help consumers. While it is good to see that Bill 59 tries to reduce repeat borrowing from payday lenders and ease repayment of loans with usurious interest rates, the bill is too focused on regulation. Brian Dijkema, Work & Economics Program Director at public policy think tank Cardus, told a legislative committee that consumers attracted to payday loans need alternative options. The Cardus report Banking on the Margins acknowledges that there will always be demand for short-term loans from consumers who cannot access credit. However, two practical measures can help: Governments, community foundations, and religious groups could help decrease the risk for financial institutions to make small-dollar loans available by offering funds to backstop loan losses or by providing market-based incentives for new alternatives. By empowering borrowers to achieve financial stability and avoid the potential harms of payday-loan use, enabling small-dollar loans could reduce or eliminate the harmful ripple effects of payday-loan dependency. Governments – especially at the provincial and municipal level – can promote payday loan alternatives that already exist. By leveraging their significant communications reach, governments can help raise consumer awareness of lending alternatives run by credit unions, banks, or other institutions. “There is little the government can do on its own to meet demand for small-dollar, short-term loans for real needs,” Dijkema told the Standing Committee on Social Policy. “That’s why we’ve recommended that governments partner with credit unions and others to provide better, cheaper alternatives to payday loans for consumers facing a credit crunch.” -30- MEDIA INQUIRIES Brian Dijkema Cardus – Work & Economics Program Director 905-730-7321 bdijkema@cardus.ca

THE RELIGIOUS SCHOOL ADVANTAGE: CREATING GENEROUS CITIZENS Catholic and Evangelical high schools in the United States produce graduates who tend to volunteer and donate more to charity as adults. February 16, 2017 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE OTTAWA – Religiously based U.S. high schools are proving to be especially good at turning out graduates who become civic-minded adults, finds a new study funded by Cardus an independent, North American think tank. Catholic school graduates are over 50 per cent more likely than public school graduates to volunteer for organizations that fight poverty, according to data in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics – the world’s longest active panel study of households and family. The same data show graduates of Evangelical Protestant and other non-Catholic religious schools are about 40 per cent more likely to volunteer in general as adults than their public school counterparts are. “Graduates of Catholic high schools seem to reflect the approach of Catholic social teaching, which emphasizes the importance of relieving poverty, among other priorities, like providing health care and education,” said Dr. Beth Green, Program Director for Cardus Education. “And it’s not surprising to see these results among evangelical graduates whose religious culture values putting others before self and sacrificing for the common good.” The study also found a difference in charitable giving. Even after accounting for differences in socio-economic status, American graduates of Catholic, Evangelical, and other non-Catholic religious schools are more likely than public school graduates to make charitable donations. In terms of the amounts donated, graduates of Evangelical Protestant and other non-Catholic religious schools annually give on average $1,273 more than public school graduates do to charitable causes. Sociologists Dr. David Sikkink and Dr. Jonathan Schwarz authored the study, The Lasting Impact of High School on Giving and Volunteering in the U.S., as part of their work at the Cardus Religious Schools Initiative at the University of Notre Dame. -30- About the Cardus Religious Schools Initiative The Cardus Religious Schools Initiative (CRSI) seeks to generate new theoretical and empirical tools for understanding religious schools. CRSI conducts research which aims to appreciate the uniqueness of religious schools' mission and organization, to reveal the extent that religious schools improve outcomes for students, families, churches, and communities, and to show the links between school mission and organization and student and family outcomes. MEDIA INQUIRIES Daniel Proussalidis Cardus - Director of Communications 613.241.4500 x.508 dproussalidis@cardus.ca

FORCED GENDER PARITY ON CORPORATE BOARDS MISGUIDED Government intervention on corporate board composition has failed in other jurisdictions. February 14, 2017 OTTAWA – MPs studying Bill C-25 need to give some sober second thought to whether this legislation will actually achieve its goals. The bill would force corporations to state publicly how many women sit on their boards and occupy senior management positions. It would also compel companies to share their diversity policies with shareholders. Furthermore, the federal government has left open the option of mandating gender quotas on corporate boards if it is not satisfied with progress in getting women into senior positions. What evidence is there that such policies benefit women or corporations? A book about the Nordic experience released in May 2016 punctures those hopes and should be cause for reconsidering Canada’s path. The Nordic Gender Equality Paradox by Nima Sanandaji assesses gender-equality programs and plans in Iceland, Finland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway. Sanandaji found little to no benefit from those programs. In Norway’s case, for example, the government imposed quotas in 2003 requiring 40 per cent of board members of public companies to be women. This became mandatory for all companies in 2006. Of 500 companies affected, about 100 made "difficult but legal" changes in corporate structure to circumvent the new legislation. Moreover, share prices dropped 3.5 per cent after the quota legislation was announced. Quotas had little to no effect on women's pay, or women choosing to enter the business world. Why would investors expect gender quotes to decrease the value of firms? Fortunately, the conclusion of scholars is that this is not because women can't manage business well, but because, thanks to the pressure of the quotas, younger and therefore less experienced women needed to be quickly promoted. Authors of one study conclude, "The quota led to younger and less experienced boards, increases in leverage and acquisitions, and deterioration in operating performance." “When women reach the top and are on boards because they excel, it does indeed improve performance. This is not due to gender or diversity, but rather, excellence,” says Andrea Mrozek, Program Director for Cardus Family. “If quotas or other policies force hiring women on a short timeframe, and as a result, the wrong women are chosen, there is reason to be concerned that the push for gender parity will develop a bad reputation.” At the end of the day, MPs need to ask whether the laudable goal of getting more women on corporate boards is served by the bill before them. -30- MEDIA INQUIRIES Daniel Proussalidis Cardus - Director of Communications 613.241.4500 x.508 dproussalidis@cardus.ca

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY BRINGS ON CARDUS SENIOR FELLOW FOR WORK ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESEARCH PROJECT Dr. Andrew Bennett adds international dimension to his work on Canadian religious freedom issues February 9, 2017 OTTAWA – Cardus is pleased to announce that Dr. Andrew Bennett is expanding his work on religious freedom issues to the international realm. While he will retain his responsibilities as a Cardus Senior Fellow, Program Director for Cardus Law, and Chair of the Cabinet of Canadians, Dr. Bennett has also taken up an additional role as Senior Research Fellow at Georgetown University’s Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs. As a Senior Research Fellow, Dr. Bennett will contribute to the research activities of the Berkley Center’s Religious Freedom Research Project, author commentaries on international religious freedom, and participate in the Project’s outreach activities. “My religious freedom work at Cardus will continue to be focused on what is happening in Canada,” said Dr. Bennett. “But this new position gives me the opportunity to fulfill my long-held desire to support religious freedom internationally and to build on my experience gained when I served as Canada’s Ambassador for Religious Freedom.” Cardus firmly believes Dr. Bennett’s work with Georgetown University will serve as a complement to our own work in Canada. -30- MEDIA INQUIRIES Daniel Proussalidis Cardus - Director of Communications 613.241.4500 x 508 dproussalidis@cardus.ca

BANNING SPANKING DOES MORE HARM THAN GOOD The effort to repeal Section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada is not evidence-based policy-making. January 26, 2017 OTTAWA – When the Senate resumes debate later this month, it will continue consideration of a bill that would ban the use of reasonable force by parents and teachers to discipline children in their care. Bill S-206 would do this by repealing Section 43 of the Criminal Code, which protects a parent who swats an ill-behaved child on the bottom from facing criminal charges. However, a new research review by think tank Cardus, Parental Discipline, concludes that the effort to repeal Section 43 is based on flawed reasoning. Repealing Section 43 could turn good parents into criminals: In New Zealand, where spanking was banned in 2007, there are documented cases of traumatizing court cases sparked by a parent admitting to spanking a child. This is why Canadian lawyers told the Senate in 2008 that removing Section 43 from the Criminal Code would leave “parents and teachers who are doing their best to raise and educate their children … through the appropriate use of discipline” without a legal defence. Repealing Section 43 would turn flawed science into government policy: Proponents of spanking bans often cite a 2016 University of Texas at Austin review that found the appropriate use of reasonable force caused children to have aggressive or other negative tendencies. However, Dr. Robert Larzelere, Endowed Professor of Parenting at Oklahoma State University, notes that almost all the studies examined in that review failed to distinguish between spanking and abuse. He also notes the review failed to determine whether aggressive behaviour observed in children came before or after the use of reasonable force. Repealing Section 43 would not correct a historical wrong: The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which examined the abuse of First National children in residential schools at the turn of the century, recommended the repeal of Section 43. Proponents of Bill S-206 have used this to promote their effort. However, the commission never established a link between parents using reasonable force at home with their own children in 2017 and the abuse of First Nations children. “Spanking bans are not an example of evidence-based policy-making,” said Andrea Mrozek, Program Director for Cardus Family. “Repealing Section 43 would give the government another opportunity to intrude into the homes and lives of loving parents seeking to discipline their children reasonably.” -30- MEDIA INQUIRIES Daniel Proussalidis Cardus - Director of Communications 613.241.4500 x.508 dproussalidis@cardus.ca

COMPETITION FOR PUBLIC CONTRACTS IS GOOD FOR TAXPAYERS Research shows Ontario cities can save hundreds of millions of dollars with open bidding for contracts. January 17, 2017 HAMILTON – Several Ontario cities are missing out on hundreds of millions of dollars in savings by restricting bids on municipal contracts – especially in construction – to a select group of unionized bidders. Brian Dijkema, Work & Economics program director at public policy think tank Cardus, and Dr. Morley Gunderson, CIBC Chair in Youth Employment at the University of Toronto where he is also a professor at the Centre for Industrial Relations and Human Resources, performed an extensive examination of research on the effects of restricted tendering in government contracts in construction in Ontario. In their new policy paper, Restrictive Tendering: Protection for Whom?, Dijkema and Gunderson found that open competition for municipal contracts would lead to three major benefits: Taxpayers would save anywhere from 8% to 25% on project costs. Pressure to hire the best would leave the construction industry less prone to discriminate against women, Indigenous people, new immigrants, and others. The construction industry would have less incentive to spend time and money lobbying to sustain laws and regulations that deter new entrants to the market. “Municipal governments are needlessly throwing hundreds of millions of dollars away because they restrict bidding to a select few unionized companies,” says Dijkema. “If Toronto alone modernized its bidding rules, it would have a ripple effect across the entire province.” The move to open Toronto’s construction procurement would continue the trend of bringing competition to public service provision, of which Toronto’s waste collection is the most recent. “Mayor Tory has publicly decried the negative effects of monopolies and has acted to bring competition to waste collection, saving residents tens of millions of dollars” adds Dijkema. “If he did the same for Toronto’s construction he could save hundreds of millions of dollars.” Other cities which find their infrastructure budgets constrained by restricted bidding include Hamilton, Sault Ste. Marie, and the Region of Waterloo. Download the full report here. -30- MEDIA INQUIRIES Daniel Proussalidis Cardus - Director of Communications 613.241.4500 x.508 dproussalidis@cardus.ca

January 10, 2017 OTTAWA – Cardus is making a new advocate for the defence of religious freedom available to the news media through the launch of Cardus Law. Dr. Andrew Bennett, Cardus Senior Fellow and Canada’s former ambassador for religious freedom, will lead this new program, which aims to develop a better understanding how defending religious freedom enables other freedoms to thrive. “Freedom of religion is a foundational freedom because without it, concepts like freedom of speech and assembly become meaningless,” says Bennett. “Cardus Law will seek to articulate that fact, helping to ensure that fundamental freedoms are guarded and upheld by Canadian institutions, including the courts and legislatures, and individual citizens.” Under Bennett’s leadership, Cardus Law will focus on fostering scholarship, public discussion, and engagement with the legal process to help better understand how the law relates to such fundamental principles as freedom, justice, and truth. Cardus Law has also released two new research papers, one from Bennett himself, and another by Faisal Bhabha, Associate Professor at Osgoode Hall Law School of York University. Bennett’s paper focuses on religious freedom as a fundamental freedom. Prof. Bhabha, meanwhile, examines the implications of several religious freedom cases that have worked their way through the Canadian court system. Their research papers are available here. -30- MEDIA INQUIRIES Daniel Proussalidis Cardus - Director of Communications 613.241.4500 x.508 dproussalidis@cardus.ca