Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Day of Action in 7 Days



Feb. 7th Day of Action
Is in 7 Days!
Only one more week to go before a 1/2 million students (at least) walk out to tell the government and post-secondary institutions that we want a reduction in tuition and increased accessibility to post-secondary education.
After four years of deregulated increases, students forced the BC Government to re-regulate tuition fees in 2005-2006 after submitting more than 38,000 signatures to the Legislature calling for tuition fee reductions and a reinstatement of funding. The decision to prohibit any institution from increasing fees beyond the rate of inflation (2%) annually represented an about-face from the government's previous rigid policy of unfettered increases ad marked a major victory for students.
However, the tuition fee increase policy did nothing to reduce the cost of a post-secondary education, and ensures that post-secondary education will remain out of reach for many potential students and their families. Today, tuition and ancillary fees are the most significant barrier to acquiring a post-secondary education. In BC, the average university student pays nearly $5,000 in tuiton and ancillary fees, while college, university-college and institute students pay an average of $3,400.
The Canadian Federation of Students has worked to develop widespread support on issues of affordability, with public opinion polling showing that the vast majority of British Columbians believe that tuition and ancillary fees are too high.
On February 7th, students in BC are demanding that the government go the next step in ensuring an affordable post-secondary education system and a prosperous future for all British Columbians by:
  • reducing tuition fees by 10% in 2007-2008
  • increasing funding for all post-secondary education institutions
  • making adult basic educatoin tuition fee free
  • reinstating student grants for those in need, including graduate students
  • increasing funding for trades and apprenticeship students

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Feb 7th, The Word is Spreading

Windsor Students Deliver 3,000 Petition Signatures to Sandra Pupatello Calling for the Reduction of Tuition Fees

Canadian Federation of Students Ontario

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

WINDSOR--
Students from the University of Windsor delivered 3,000 petition signatures to the constituency office of Ontario Minister of Economic Development and Trade Sandra Pupatello today. The petition calls for the rollback of the McGuinty government’s tuition fee increases, the restoration of the tuition fee freeze, and an increase in funding for post-secondary education.

“Premier McGuinty’s Reaching Higher Plan for tuition fee increases makes going to university even harder for most of us,” said Justin Teeuwen, President of the University of Windsor Students’ Alliance. “Increasing tuition fees does nothing to encourage the ‘knowledge economy’ we’ve heard so much about.”After the McGuinty government increased tuition fees by 4 to 8%, students’ unions across Ontario collected signatures from tens of thousands of voters since the beginning of classes this September. The petitions delivered to Pupatello today follow the delivery of more than 40,000 signatures presented to MPPs and the Premier earlier this fall by students at Carleton University, George Brown College, University of Guelph, Lakehead University, Laurentian University, University of Ottawa, Ryerson University, University of Toronto, and York University.

“Student debt has gone up almost 350% in the last 15 years and that’s because tuition fees have increased four times faster than inflation,” said Lena Mangoff, President of the University of Windsor Graduate Students’ Society. “With increases as high as 8%, graduate students have been hit with the highest of all tuition fee increases in the province.”

“The McGuinty government’s tuition fee increases will result in a claw back of more than $1.30 for every dollar invested in student aid. Meanwhile part-time students aren’t eligible for any Ontario financial aid at all,” said Badaruddin Khuhro, President of the University of Windsor Organization of Part-time University Students.

“Dalton McGuinty has broken his promise to freeze tuition fees at a time when the Ontario government is sitting on a $300 million surplus and new money from the federal government for post-secondary education,” said Jesse Greener, Ontario Chairperson of the Canadian Federation of Students. “The petition of 3,000 University of Windsor students delivered today demonstrates that McGuinty’s plan for tuition fee increases is out of step with Ontario voters.”

The Canadian Federation of Students, Canada’s national student organisation, unites more than 500,000 college and university students across the country, and nearly 300,000 in Ontario. On February 7, 2007, students across Canada will be participating in a National Student Day of Action against tuition fee increases. Visit www.ReduceTuitionFees.ca for more campaign information.

Monday, January 29, 2007

A Middle East View of Mackay's Mentor... Rice

Rice is ignorant of the Palestinian issue
By Adel Safty


During her recent visit to the Middle East, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice used Kissingerian terms to claim that the war against Hezbollah in Lebanon and the war in Iraq created unique geopolitical alignment that finally made peace in Palestine possible.
To the consternation of the Palestinians, however, she only brought the same biased and incomprehensively ill-informed approach embedded in the now discredited roadmap.
A fundamental obligation of the roadmap is that Israel stop all activities to build colonies in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Israeli leaders have done precisely the opposite.
In July 2004, The International Court of Justice found that "the Israeli settlements [colonies] in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law". It also found that the separation wall was in breach of international law.

A few days before Rice arrived in Israel, the Israeli government announced the establishment of a new colony in the occupied West Bank. Washington responded with the usual slap on the wrist, albeit with unusually strong language for the Bush administration.

You would think that if Rice was seriously interested in reviving the moribund Middle East "peace process", the issue of Israel's continued violations of the roadmap ban on construction of colonies would figure prominently in her discussions with Israeli leaders.

Kidnapped
One would think that if Rice wanted to bolster the embattled Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's standing she would have pressed Israeli leaders to free the Palestinian government officials and legislators that the Israeli forces have kidnapped and illegally imprisoned.
One would think she would insist that Israeli leaders hand over the $500 million in Palestinian tax revenues they illegally withheld to punish the Palestinians for exercising their democratic right to elect a Hamas government.

Instead, Rice and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert repeated the usual condescending platitudes about the need for the occupied, not the occupier, to meet the conditions set by the occupier: recognition of Israel, relinquishing violence and acceptance of previous agreements with Israel.

As to the fiction of the roadmap, Rice and Olmert agreed that "a Palestinian government would have to abide by the road map". This is laughable considering that Israeli leaders never hid their intention to use the roadmap as an excuse to delay and abort the peace process.
Even the Israeli press recognised that the reference to the roadmap was "Olmert's way of foiling various recent attempts by Europeans and other elements to call for an international peace summit." (Haarezt, January 16)

Abbas was aghast. Instead of being bolstered by Rice's visit, he felt weakened as Hamas's predictions were being verified by Rice's ill-informed approach.
Perhaps Abbas should have invested some effort in educating Rice, notoriously ignorant about the Middle East, by giving her a copy of the Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem's 2006 annual statistics report.

Rice would have learned that during 2006, Israeli military actions killed 660 Palestninans including 141 children, as opposed to 17 Israelis, including one child, killed by Palestinian actions. She would have also learned that the Israelis maintain in the West Bank some 52 permanent checkpoints in addition to hundreds of physical obstacles such as concrete blocs to restrict access to Palestinian communities.

Rice would also have learned that former US president Jimmy Carter did not use the word apartheid gratuitously in his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid - for which he was criticised by the Washington establishment and the Israeli lobby.
The Israeli human rights group B'Tselem has also reached the same conclusion.

Sanitised
Had Rice taken the trouble to learn any of these facts, conveniently sanitised from public debate in the United States, she might have learned the need to define the Israeli-Palestine conflict with more fairness and intellectual honesty.
She might have detected the fallacy underlying the usual Israeli strategy of confiscation, dispossession, dispersion and the systematic shattering of the Palestinian society, while blaming the victim for the absence of peace.

Peter Mackay - Where's Waldo?

January 25, 2007
By Jon Elmer

Peter MacKay in Israel and Palestine
--What the Foreign Minister did not see or discuss during his visit

GAZA CITY, GAZA -- Despite the impression cast by corporate news coverage, there is never anything like "calm" here in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The casualty count for 2006 released by Israeli human rights group B'Tselem reports that Israeli forces killed 660 Palestinians, while 17 Israeli civilians were killed, 13 of them in the West Bank. The violence is often spectacular, as during the summer and fall siege operations in Gaza that killed more than 450 Palestinians under withering aerial bombardment, artillery barrages and two major ground invasions. But, as an unusually frank headline in the current edition of the Economist rightly stated, "It's the little things that make an occupation."

When Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay visited Israel this week, it was these "little things" that he missed--like the more than 530 fixed checkpoints and roadblocks identified in a joint UN-IDF count in the occupied West Bank. These obstacles make simple travel between neighbouring Palestinian villages often impossible, particularly when added to the more than 7,000 "flying checkpoints" that spring up at the whim of the Israeli army, anywhere and at anytime. As the Economist pointed out, "arbitrariness is one of the most crippling features of these rules."

The checkpoints and closure regime enforced by Israel is more than inconvenient; all too often, it is deadly. On Friday, as MacKay met with President Abbas in Amman, Israeli soldiers at the Hawara checkpoint outside of the West Bank city of Nablus refused the Israeli-issued permits of a patient returning from liver surgery in Palestinian East Jerusalem. The soldiers forced Tayseer Al Qaisi out of the car and ordered him to walk across the checkpoint. Al Qaisi, a father of eight, was weakened critically by the surgery and collapsed only a few hundred feet into the checkpoint. As reported by David Chater of Al Jazeera International, a Palestinian ambulance was prevented from entering the area for two hours. Mr Al Qaisi died while waiting for help.

In meetings with top Israeli cabinet ministers, Peter MacKay did not mention the more than 2,200 hours of strict curfew enforced by tanks and gunfire over the last two years, or the more than 5,400 Palestinians who were arrested or detained on Palestinian land last year -- including more than half of the elected Palestinian cabinet, the Speaker of Parliament and scores of local and municipal officials. He did not ask about the Palestinian prisoner who died in Israeli custody this week, or about the hunger strike being waged by political prisoners at Ansar III in the Negev desert in response to an attack by guards with police dogs and tear gas. While MacKay gave ample notice that he would be discussing the Israeli soldier captured on the Gaza border in June, he almost surely did not bring up the 11,000 political prisoners being held by Israel, some 400 of them children.

Nor did MacKay talk about the more than 30 incursions into Palestinian cities and villages by the Israeli army in the last eight days, or the 14 fisherman shot off the coast of Rafah last week as they fished in Palestinian waters. He didn't talk about the 15 Palestinians injured by Israeli forces in protests this week, or of 10-year-old schoolgirl, Abir Aramin, who died on January 20 as she left the grounds of her school in Anata. According to witnesses, Abir was pursued by Israeli forces as she tried to run away and was shot in the head with a stun grenade or tear gas canister at close range.

It's doubtful that MacKay raised the issue of last week's bulldozing of the entire "unrecognized" Bedouin village of Twail Abu-Jarwal in the Negev Desert. The Bedouin were displaced because they were illegally "trespassing" on the land of the Jewish state, despite the fact that their presence in the desert long predates the State of Israel. They are being forcibly relocated to urban reservations, while the Negev is prepared for settlement by the Jewish National Fund. In the "only democracy in the Middle East," at least 75,000 Bedouin live in more than 40 villages that are officially "unrecognized," where, like in Palestinian areas, building permits are denied and demolition orders are routinely carried out. The unrecognized villages have no infrastructure--no sewage, no water or electricity, and often no health or education facilities.

While Arab and Bedouin homes are destroyed, Jewish ones are being built. On the same day that MacKay arrived in the region, the Olmert government announced that 44 new housing units would be built in the Maale Adumim settlement near Jerusalem, a settlement which effectively, if not absolutely, severs the West Bank in two. In fact, MacKay won't deal with the issue of settlements at all--not the 121 illegal settlements and 100 outposts in the West Bank, nor the scores of settlements in occupied-East Jerusalem, beyond acknowledging the massive infrastructure of permanent dispossession as a "hindrance." In fact, along with their Jewish-only roads and attendant security footprint, these settlements render a Palestinian state an impossibility. Rather than fortified colonies on illegally occupied land, the Canadian government calls the settlements "facts on the ground." Not to be outdone, Stephen Harper referred to the settlement blocs as "democratic realities" in addressing a Zionist advocacy group in early 2006.

MacKay did not address the substance of the 700 km-long barrier of sniper towers, concrete walls and deadly electronic fences snaking deep into the West Bank (80 per cent of the wall is built on UN recognized Palestinian land) in order to annex the massive settlement blocs into Israel and isolate the Palestinians into enclaves. He did not visit the machinery of settlement and dispossession created by the wall, the checkpoints, the settlements, the settler-only roads. John Dugard, South African human rights lawyer and UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory told the UN General Assembly, "In other countries the process would be described as ethnic cleansing, but political correctness [forbids] such language where Israel was concerned."

MacKay certainly did not visit Gaza, where 1.5 million people (one million of whom are refugees) are sealed off from the rest of the world, teetering on the edge of total social and humanitarian collapse because of the cruel and comprehensive sanctions regime that he so proudly vanguards. MacKay boastfully declared "not a red cent to Hamas" when the movement won the Palestinian elections early last year, but failed to see what that means on the streets of Gaza. He did not visit the EU-funded power station that was destroyed by the Israeli Air Force in June, nor did he visit the refugee camps where a million of the world's poorest people have been condemned to endless months of crippling power shortages, random blackouts and Israeli-imposed shortages of cooking and heating gas.

He didn't see the rubble left from thousands of aerial bombing raids and tens of thousands of artillery shells. He didn't see the roads shredded by tanks, or the pile of gravel in Beit Hanun that used to be an 800-year-old mosque. He didn't see the graffiti on the demolished houses that reads "we will never forget." He didn't walk in the refugee camps as winter rains and sewage run in rivers down the unpaved streets, or visit the beachside picnic site where the Ghaliya family was massacred in front of the eyes of seven-year-old Huda, whose horrified tears were broadcast around the world. He didn't visit the ambulance workers at the Red Crescent, four of whom were killed by the Israeli army since June. Where does Canada stand on the killing of medical relief workers, Mr. MacKay?

And what about the home of the Atamna family in Beit Hanun, where blood still covers the walls and pieces of shrapnel are scattered on the floor and embedded in the cinderblock walls after an artillery barrage by the Israeli army? The IDF had used the family's home as a forward operating base in the November operation during which more than one hundred Palestinians were killed; the Atamna family was cordoned into one room and guarded by soldiers. The morning after the army left their home, the shells came. Within moments, 60 members of the extended family lay in the street, either maimed or dead. When asked what they would say to the Canadian government, defending Israel's atrocities as it does time and again, Iyad Atamna said: "We don't want your money or your political support, just come here for one day before you speak about justice."

Day of Action in 9 Days

Feb. 7th Day of Action
Is in 9 Days!


Only 9 days left before the Feb. 7th day of Action!! I'm sure that I've mentioned a million times already how excited I am about this. The amount of tuition now is rather ridiculous - and the funny thing is, tuition costs go up, yet students do not see any improvements in the quality of their post-secondary education. Where exactly is this money going? It obviously isn't going back to the students. If more emphasis were placed on post-secondary education, and the benefits of education has on society - if perhaps beaurocrats give two-cents about (post-secondary) education, the Canadian Federation of Students would not have had to devise this brilliant plan of having at least a half-million students walking out on February 7th.

Today's information is from an article posted on the reducetuition.ca website - a good read.


Students to Doer: Why wait another five years?
-->Tuesday, November 14, 2006


WINNIPEG--
The Canadian Federation of Students is encouraged that the Doer government plans to keep the tuition fee freeze, and acknowledge in today’s throne speech the student debt crisis as well as the social value that education provides, but is urging the provincial government not to delay financial relief to students for five years.

“We agree that student debt and the costs of education stifle young people and the economy,” said Stacy Senkbeil, Provincial Chairperson of the Canadian Federation of Students. “So why tinker with tax credits that benefit few when the tuition fee freeze already keeps young people in Manitoba?”

Added Senkbeil: “Students are paying their tuition fees and taking on student debt now, many can’t afford to wait five years for relief.”

Although the details of the tuition fee tax credit policy have yet to be unveiled, preliminary information from the provincial government suggests that the programme will be modeled after New Brunswick’s tax credit. Only those paying income tax are eligible to receive the credit in that province, and the programme does nothing to improve access for those that cannot afford tuition fees in the first place. The Canadian Federation of Students points out that the tuition fee freeze and other up-front measures like low-income grants may be more effective than the New Brunswick model, both for attracting young people to Manitoba and improving access to universities and colleges.

According to figures released last month by the provincial government, 3,294 more young people between the ages of 15 and 24 came to Manitoba than left during the period between 1999 and 2006. This compares favorably to the net loss of 2,579 between 1992 and 1999, when tuition fees were rising.

Concluded Senkbeil: “Fee reductions and grants are based on the idea that education benefits everyone: they give students with modest incomes a better chance of getting an education, while tax credits are only an investment in those that can afford fees in the first place.”

Sunday, January 28, 2007

Day of Action in 8 Days

Feb. 7th Day of Action
Is in 8 Days

All out on February 7th! Make some noise! Make it known that you and a million other students aren't happy with ridiculous prices of tuition.

Record Tuition Fee Hikes
In 1990, governments across Canada started increasing tuition fees at dramatic rates. Even with recent tuition fees freezes and reductions in some provinces, the average student today is paying more than twice as much as students did in 1990.

Saturday, January 27, 2007

Day of Action In 10 Days

Feb 7th. Day of Action
Is In 10 Days

Reduce Tuition Fees! Increase accessibility for post-secondary education! Walkout on Wednesday, February 7! Only 10 days until the national Day of Action.

Federal Funding Cuts

For more than two decades, the Canadian Federation of Students has called for the establishment of national standards for post-secondary education and research. The federation proposes that a Ministry of post-secondary education and research be established and that a post-secondary Education Act, modeled on the principles of the Canada Health Act, be implemented a Ministry, a dedicated transfer payment, and corresponding legislation will provide the federal government with a coherent and enforceable national vision for post-secondary education and research.

Since the introduction of the Canada Health and Social Transfer in 1996, accountability and transparency for federal post-secondary educaton transfers have diminished. The situation did not improve with the creation of the Canada Social transfer in 2004. In fact, there are currenly no federal standards to guide provincial post-secondary education spending.

During the 2006 federal election campaign, Stephan Harper's Conservatives promised to create a dedicated transfer payment for post-secondary education. In Febuary 2006, a summit on post-secondary education and research organised by Canada's premiers called for the reinvestment of the $4.9 billion that has been cut from annual federal transfers to the provinces since 1993.

Day of Action in 11 Days

Feb. 7th Day of Action
Is in 11 Days
So, Day of Action is in 11 days - I would have posted a blog yesterday, however by the time I got home at the end of the night I was too tired to do much of anything. The excitement continues to build...
Today's cool information is in regards to the Millennium Scholarship.
Millennium Scholarship:
A Failed Experiment in Student Financial Aid
Canadian Federation of Students Fact sheet
Anounced in 1998 "education" budget, the Millennium Scholarship Foundating was a belated acknowledgement by the federal government of the student debt crisis in Canada. In the face of average debt levels of $25,000, the Millenium Scholarship Foundation (MSF) was to be the centerpiece of the federal government's student debt reduction strategy. At the time of its introduction, Finance Minister Paul Martin declared in the House of Commons that the Foundation would reduce the debt of those in the greatest need by $12,000. However, nearly seven years after its implementation the Foundation has proven to be at best a public relations gimmick, or at worst, a champion of higher student debt.
The Record
In theory, the Foundation's mandate is to disburse $250 million annually in student financial assistance. The federal government chose to have the Foundation dispense the funds through an annual allotment to the provinces based on population size. Without any advanced agreement from the provinces about implementation, the hastily conceived structure of the Foundation made most provinces resentful participants.
Provincial Misuse
Provinces were asked to sign a non-binding agreement not to reduce their contributions to student financial assistance. In places where Foundation dollars overlapped ("displaced") provincial dollars, the provincial savings were supposed to be re-directed into financial aid, but the record of re-investment has been minimal at best.
The Nova Scotia government simply ignored the agreement, consciously re-directing funds intended for students into other government revenues. Four years passed before the Foundation decided to enforce the agreement, and, in 2003, a new provincial program using Millennium Scholarship Foundation funds was announced. Unfortunately, the program is a complicated "back-end" debt remission scheme that will do nothing to improve access to post-secondary education in Nova Scotia.
In Ontario, where approximately 40% of the Fundation funds are allocated, the provincial government has directed less than 15% of displaced savings back into student financial aid assistance.
In Saskatchewan, the provincial government has re-invested none of the displaced money back into student financial assistance. Despite the signed agreement to invest in reducing stduent debt, the Saskatchewan government has informed the MSF that is used Foundation funds to keep tuition fee increases moderate. However, since the inception of the MSF, tuiton fees have risen in Saskatchewan by 6%. MSF officals consider these hikes in line with what was agreed to with the province. So, the high-need student in Saskatchewan who Paul Martin promised in 1998 would see her debt reduced by $12,000 actually graduated in 2004 with her debt increased by over $1,500. Senior MSF officals are adament that the program is working perfectly well in Saskatchewan and that the MSF was never really designed to actually reduce student debt.
An external review of the Foundation conducted in 2003 also concluded that the Foundation's impact on student debt was minimal. Sadly, the Foundation continues to deny that the misuse of the endowment has diminished its effectiveness.
The Public Relations Smokescreen
From the very beginning, the Foundatoin functoined as a partisan public relations vehicle for the federal government. In its first year of implementation, the Foundation sent students letters telling them they had won scholarships. In fact, students had "won" nothing; in most cases, the scholarships replaced provincial loan remission. Recipients were simply getting a portion of their student financial assistance from another source. To further the federal government's own partisan goals, the Foundation included sample news releases with letters that encouraged students to celebrate their "winnings" by sharing the news with the local community.
The Research Smokescreen
Despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that it has been unable to address the issue of student debt, the Millennium Scholarship Foundation has embarked on a campaign to downplay the crisis of student debt. The Foundation has taken on a prominant role as a partisan think-tank in debates about post-secondary education policy. In briefings to government committees, federal bureaucrats, and university and college presidents, Foundation officals have argued that higher student debt and higher tuition fees will not affect accessibility. In other words, a supposedly arms-length, non-partisan, publically funded foundation has evolved into an apologist for the federal government's record on post-secondary education.
The Foundation's efforto downplay the student debt crisis rely on a misreading of the data. For example, using research involving interviews with young Canadians who did not go to college or university, the Foundation wilfully ignored the fact that direct financial barriers were the most commonly reported reason for non-attendance. Instead, the Foundation chose to emphasise the other barriers cited by non-attendees to challenge the generally accepted importance of financil barriers. Recently, the MSF research department claimed that finances were only the third most important barrier for poor students behind lack of information and poor grades.
When the data is more closely examined, it is even more clear that the Foundation's presentation of the results is misleading. Many of the so-called "non-financial barriers" cited by non-attendees are often indirectly related to insufficient personal resources. In this light, the number of people who "chose" not to attend university or college due to financial barriers is much higher. Moreover, this data was collected in 1991 and 1995, which means its results fail to take into account the effects of the enormous increases in tuition fees across Canada since the mid-nineties.
A Credible Reading of Existing Data
Foundation officials have publically claimed that higher tuition fees have little or no effect on access to post-secondary education, and that money is not the primary factor in determining who continues to higher education. However, most reliable evidence points to the contrary. For example, Statistics Canada has consistently reported that high-income Canadians are twice as likely to attend university as low-income Canadians.
This conclusion is further supported by Statistics Canada's Youth in Transition Survey. The survey found that financial obstacles were a barrier for over 70% of the 18-20 year old highschool graduates who cited barriers to their participation in higher education. This statistics Canada survey is another example of research that the Foundation has reported upon without concluding that high costs of post-secondary education are a deterrent to students from low-income backgrounds.
Conclusion
The Millennium Scholarship Foundation's primary role has been to perpetuate the appearance that the federal government has been active in tackling student debt. This effort has been bolstered by the Foundation's so-called "research project". The approach of the Foundation can be summed up in the words of their former research officer: student debt levels are irrelevant "because it doesn't matter how much debt a student has, what matters is their ability to pay it back."
In response to the failure of the Foundaton at delievering grants and its more recent campaign to deny the effects of student debt, the Canadian Federation of Students has called for the Foundation to be dismantled. The money saved by dismantling the Foundation should be used to fund a national system of needs-based grants administered through the Canada Student Loans Program.

Correction

my local conservative mp Colin Mayes

*update Jan.26 2007: a correction regarding the article below, as it was brought to my attention of / regarding the error.

from the liberal.ca:

Correction
January 26, 2007
On January 25, 2007, The Liberal Party of Canada erroneously stated that Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott intervened in the Neil Stonechild case and set up a legal defence fund for the officers charged in his death. In fact, Mr. Vellacott spearheaded a legal defence fund for two former officers convicted after another Saskatchewan Aboriginal man, Darrell Night, was abandoned in freezing temperatures. We apologize for the error.

*****Jan 26 2007 Added to reflect the article below (taken from liberal.ca)**
In the original version of this release, the Liberal Party of Canada stated that Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott intervened in the Neil Stonechild case. In fact, Mr. Vellacott intervened the case of another Saskatchewan Aboriginal man, Darrell Night. We apologize for the error.

Thursday, January 25, 2007

Day of Action in 13 Days

Feb. 7th Day of Action
Is in 13 Days


So, it's now 13 days before the national Day of Action! Woot! You know you're a student when you get excited about walking out to stand outside in February holding a protest sign to reduce tuition... As per-usual, I'm going to post some interesting facts... today's "fun fact?" income contingent repayment loan schemes! I know, it's exciting.

Income Contingent Repayment Loan Schemes
Canadian Federation of Students Fact Sheet

Income contingent repayment (ICR) student loan schemes are funding models for post-secondary education that are based on the belief that the individual is the primary beneficiary of education and therefore should bear the full cost. ICR is neiter a progressive nor fresh alternative to the Canada Student Loans Program, nor is it intended to improve access to post-secondary education.

An Old, Outdate Idea
In 1955, the U.S economist Milton Friedman devise ICR as a way to reduce the role of the state in financing education. Instead of public funding, Friedman proposed that there be full cost-recovery tuition fees. In order for students to pay these vastly higher tuition fees, he proposed that they have access to large loans. For repayment of the loans to be manageable, he proposed that the size of loan payments be based on each individual's level of income after graduation (i.e. income contingent).

For Friedman and those who advocate ICR, the larger political and economic principle guiding this funding model is stark: primary, secondary, and post-secondary education is seen as a commodity like any other and should be priced and produced subject to the dictates of "the market".

"It is not a form of student assistance"
Starting in the mid-1990s, proponents of ICR have sought to gain support for it by exploiting the student debt crisis and by playing down the social benefits of an educated citizenry. Rather than being up-front about their true purpose - to shift the cost of education from the state to the individual - they have tried to "sell" ICR loan schemes as an improved student aid plan that allow student loan recipients to pay off their loans as their income allows.

But the purpose of ICR is not to improve student aid. Even policy analysts involved in designing and administering ICR models concede this point. The Government of Australia describes it's ICR in these terms: "The purpose... is to raise revenue from the recipients of higher education for return to the system as part of... funding of higher education; it is not a form of student assistance."

In Canada, documents obtained through a federal Access to Information request filed in July 2004 also reveal the purpose of these schemes: "ICR loans would solve the problem of university and college underfunding, by allowing institutions to increase tuition fees to cover a greater portion, or eve all of its costs."

Lower Wage Earners Pay Far More in the Long Run
Under ICR, borrowers would repay their loans as a percentage of their incomes upon completion of study. Graduates with lower levels of income would repay their loans over a longer period of time, while those in high-paying jobs could repay their loans more quickly and pay less interest. Those who could afford to pay their tuition fees upfront would avoid high interest rate payments after graduation and end up paying less for post-secondary education. In Australia, students who can afford to pay their tuition fees in full at the beginning of every academic year receive a 25% discount.

A Lifelong Debt Sentence
ICR would disproportionately hurwomen because it would take them, on average, considerably longer to pay back their interest-bearing loans. Repayment difficultie would be more pronounced because women still earn less than men on average and many leave the workforce due to pregnancy and child rearing. Under one model considered in Canada in the mid-1990s, 43% of women would not be able to pay off their debt after 25 years of repayment.

The International Evidence
In other countries, ICR schemes have been accompanied by higher tuition fees, higher debt loands, and extended repayment periods. In 1989, Australia introduced ICR as part of a package of new tuition fees that were more than 500% higher than the previous administrative fee of $263. The government promised that tuition fees would rise with the Consumer Price Index, but broke this commitment within three years. In the seventh year of Australia's ICR scheme, the government introduced a three-tiered differential fee structure that increased tuition fees by anywhere from 35% to 125% in one year alone.

New Zealand (1993) and the UK (1998) followed Australia's lead, introducing both tuition fees and an ICR scheme simultaneously. Accessibility and affordability have been undermined in both countries.

In the UK, university applications from lower income students have dropped by nearly 10% since the introduction of tuition fees and ICR loans.

In New Zealand, total student debt had risen to over $5 billion by 2002 and only one in ten students is debt free. The New Zealand University Students’ Association estimates that
by 2020 total student debt in New Zealand will rise to almost $20 billion, an amount the country’s Auditor General believes could be “a major source of risk” to New Zealand’s national government. Women, indigenous people, and students from minority groups in New Zealand have been hit particularly hard by the inequities inherent in ICR schemes.

For example, a Maori woman can expect to spend an average of 24 years repaying the cost of her bachelor degree under ICR, as opposed to 13 years for a New Zealand male of European ancestry.5 These figures are even worse for Pacific (non-Maori Polynesian) women in New
Zealand, who face a staggering estimated average loan repayment time of 33 years. A woman with a bachelor degree in New Zealand can expect to take an average of 28 years to repay her loans under ICR—almost double the 15 year average repayment time for men.

A leading New Zealand demographer recently found that soaring student debt loads and lengthy repayment times may even be a factor in New Zealand’s declining birth rate, increased emigration, and reduced rates of home ownership since the mid-1990s.

In Canada
Despite various attempts to implement ICR in Canada over the last three decades, Canadians continue to reject them.

In 1995, the federal government shelved its ICR proposal after the Canadian Federation of Students mounted a massive campaign against it. According to two leading Canadian journalists, the government's proposed reform to post-secondary education "simply seemed like a bald-faced attempt by the government to double tuition fees." In 1997, the federal government tried again to revive ICR but lending institutions and most provinces rejected the scheme as either regressive or unworkable.

The Ontario government proposed ICR in 1996 to accompany a 20% funding cut to post-secondary education. It was ultimately unable to deliever on the promise to implement this scheme due to widespread oppositon from lending institutions and students.

Income Contingent Repayment Today: Gone, But Not Forgotten
Canadian students consistently and unequivocally rejected ICR schemes duing the 1990s, leading governments in Canada to temporarily retreat from overt attempts to introduce ICR. However, past experience and international precedent should dispel any sense of complacency. When the opportunity arises, governments have a history of repackaging ICR as a solution to the funding crises created by their own cuts to post-secondary education funding. Canadians will need to be wary of new attempts to introduce ICR in coming years. Moreover, ICR schemes must be challenged on the basis of what they actually are: a means of privatising and individualising the costs of post-secondary education. The lifelong debt and increased barriers to access the result from ICR will not contribute to a healthier, more prosperous, and better-educated society.

ICRs: Chronology

  • 1964: the birth of Canada Student Loans Program
  • 1969: the Council of Ministers of Education approves, in principle, an ICR coupled with tuition fee increases
  • 1984: the Ontario government's Bovey Commission supports ICR along with increased tuition fees
  • 1991: the federal government's Smith Commission advocates increased tuition fees coupled with self-financing ICR
  • 1993: the Council of Ontario Universities proposes an ICR along with a tuition fee increase of up to 50%
  • 1994/1995: the federal government's Social Policy Review proposes a massive withdrawl of federal funding for post-secondary education accompanied by ICR
  • Jan. 25, 1995: the Canadian Federation of Students organises one of Canada's largest national student demonstrations against ICR and funding cuts to education
  • May 2, 1995: the federal government takes ICR off the table
  • 1996: the Ontario Conservatives promise to implement ICR. They never followed through due to a lack of support from lending institutions
  • 1997: the federal government announces that ICR is being considered again, but the proposal dies due to lack of support
  • 2005: a review of Ontario's system of post-secondary education led by former Premier Bob Rae calls for the implementation of ICR and the deregulation of tuition fees.

Say No To Racism

Tory committee head should quit over 'racist’ e-mail: Liberals
January 25, 2007 / The Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- Liberals want a Conservative MP to resign as head of the Commons aboriginal affairs committee over his response to a racist e-mail.At issue is a joke e-mail that refers to a native man as `Tonto’ and `chief.’A British Columbia television station reported that Tory MP Colin Mayes received the e-mail and responded with a “good joke.”Mayes didn’t deny the response when questioned, but said he didn’t mean to endorse such humour.Native references have gotten Tories into trouble in the past.Conservative MP Brian Fitzpatrick told a native-organized debate in 2000: “You can’t scalp me because I haven’t got much hair on top of my head.”

HAHA...Um... I Wasn't Laughing...

Conservative MP Colin Mayes Must Step Down, Apologize to First Nations
January 25, 2007 / Liberal.ca

OTTAWA – Conservative B.C. MP Colin Mayes must step down as Chair of the Parliamentary Aboriginal Affairs committee and apologize for his praise of an e-mail joke that denigrates Canada’s First Nations people, Liberal Indian Affairs Critic Anita Neville said.A CHBC-TV news broadcast of January 23 points out how after Mr. Mayes received a racist joke via e-mail, he replied with “good joke” and dismissed criticism leveled against him that he was racist with “I just laugh because they’re just grasping at straws.”“This joke – with its reference to ‘chief’ and ‘tonto’ and its fractured English – is a classic example of the old negative stereotypes that lead to the denigration of Canada’s First Nations people,” said Ms. Neville. “Today’s society finds it rightly unacceptable for anyone, never mind an elected public official, to speak of our Aboriginal population in this manner.

“It is unfortunate that Mr. Mayes would support and find funny something that is so insulting to First Nations. His attitude indicates that he is not qualified to chair the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. He should resign immediately as chair and apologize to First Nations people. As Chair his responsibility is to ensure that Aboriginals from coast to coast to coast get a fair, unbiased hearing at committee.”

Ms. Neville pointed out how this is not the first time Mr. Mayes has been asked to apologize to a group of Canadians for his skewed views. Back in April, he was forced to publicly apologize for and retract his claim that certain journalists should be thrown in jail.“It’s time for Mr. Mayes to be held accountable for the things he says. He must resign his position as Chair,” said Ms. Neville.

This is also the second time that the Conservatives have shown poor judgment in their appointments to this committee. Mr. Mayes replaced Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott as Chair in May after Mr. Vellacott was forced out for his inappropriate comments about Supreme Court judges’ “God-like powers.”Mr. Vellacott was appointed as Chair even though he faced strong opposition from the First Nations community because of his intervention in the Neil Stonechild case. Mr. Vellacott sided with the police officers convicted in Mr. Stonechild’s death and even started a legal defence for them.

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

More Countdown Tid Bits

Tuition Fees in Canada
A Pan-Canadian Perspective on Paying More and Getting Less

Canadian Federation of Students
Tuition Information, 2007


In the past fifteen years, tuition fees in Canada have grown to become the single largest expense for most university and college students. Rapidly increasing tuition fees have caused post-secondary education to ecome unaffordable for many low and middle-income Canadians. The dramatic tuition fee increases during this perid were the direct result of cuts to public funding for post-secondary education by the federal government and, to a somewhat lesser extent, provincial governments. Public funding currently accounts for an average of approximately 57% of university and college operating funding, down from 82% just two decades ago. This constitutes a rapid re-orientation of Canada's post-secondary education system toward individual user payments, and individual indebtedness.

Historical Overview
Prior to the Second World War, very little public funding was provided to Canada's universities (community colleges had not yet been established). University funding relied almost exclusively on private donation and substantial tuition fees. Many universities' academic programs were tied to denominational churches of the Christian faith, and relied heavily on church funding. Only a small portion of the Canadian population attended university, and the vast majority of students came from Canada's wealthiest families.

Following the war, the federal government made grants to attend university widely available to returning soldiers as part of a veterans re-integraton program. The federal government also began directly funding universities during this time, and continued to do so after most of the veterans had graduated. As well, most provincial governments began providing funding for post-secondary education institutions.

By the mid-1960s, nearly all funding for Canada's universities was provided y the federal and provincial governments. This allowed for tuition fees to be reduced to a token amount. Not surprisingly, post-secondary education enrollment exploded, with Canadians from all backgrounds gaining access to higher education for the first time.

Starting in the mid-to-late 1960s, provincial college systems were established in most provinces. Because of public investment, tuition fees at most colleges were either token or nil. This era represented a time when Canadian governments not only recognised the social and economic value of mass post-secondary education, they also invested public funds to reflect that commitment. For a period at the end of the 1960s, Newfoundland & Labrador abolished tuition fees altogether.

By the early 1970s, most of the discussoins about post-secondary educatoin began to focus on the elimination of tuition fees. In 1976, the Canadian government signed on to the United Nations' Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights promising to gradually introduce free education at all levels.

In the early 1980s, a value shift began to take root in the governments in Canada and most other western countries, as most jurisdictions began cutting funding for public programs. Post-secondary education was an easy target for these funding cuts. Because universities and colleges were funded through a combination of both federal and provincial grants plus user fees, governments were able to cut funding by forcing students and their families to subsidise the difference. For various reasons, this option was not available for governments looking to cut public investment in health-care or primary and secondary education. Between the early 1980s and early 1990s, average tuition fees at Canadian universities more than doubled. Average tuition fees at colleges, excluding those in Quebec, more than tripled.

In 1995, the federal Liberal government announced a further cut of $7 billion in public funding to provincial programs, including post-secondary education, health-care, housing and social assistance. These post-secondary education cuts were directly passed on to students, resulting in the largest tuition fee increases in Canadian history.

As access to university and college became increasingly restricted and students were forced to suffer greater debt loads in order to afford higher education, the Canadian Federation of Students was able to successfully turn the tide in several provinces. BC, followed by Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Ontario and Saskatchewan responded to pressure from students by introducing tuition fee freezes and increasing provincial funding for post-secondary education. Tuition fees were actually reduced in BC (2001), Manitoba (2000) and Newfoundland and Labrador (2002, 2003 and 2004).

Quebec was unique among the provinces because it never passed the cost of federal funding cuts on to students. Tuition fees in Quebec have been frozen for 35 of the last 40 years and college remains free for Quebec students.

At the beginning of the 1990s, average undergraduate tuition fees in Canada were $1,464. Today, average fees are $4,347 for undergraduate arts and science, an increase approximately 400 times the rate of inflation. Other compulsory fees, commonly referred to as "ancillary fees' have also increased rapidly. Between 2000-2001 and 2005-2006 alone, those fees were increased by 38.6%.


Graduate, Professional & International Students
Masters, PhD, international students, and students in professional programs have faced the steepest increases in tuiton fees. Average fees for medicatl students exceed $10,000 although dentistry students still pay the most at an average of $13,463 per year.

In 2006, graduate student tuition fees increased at twice the rate of those of undergraduate students. Unlike most undergraduate students, graduate students are enrolled year-round, and therefore have to pay tuition fees during the summer months. Thus, not only do graduate students pay higher fees, they also pay them for four months more than undergraduate students on the typical fall and winter academic schedule.

The higher fees for graduate and professional students are often justified by arguing that those with advanced degrees earn more during their lifetimes in the workforce. First, the increased earnings of professional has been notoriously exaggerated by university and college presidents in their campaign for higher fees. In addition, advocates for higher fees also ignore the fact that those who do earn higher incomes as a result of post-secondary education also pay higher income taxes. Finally, the earnings-potential argument for higher fees does not address the up-front impact of sky-high tuition fees on entry to these programs.

Students studying in Canada from other countries probably fare the worst of all, since tuition fee regulation has rarely applied to international students. Tuition fees for these students are typically double those of Canadian students' fees.


What is the Impact of High Fees?
Recent studies reveal the effects of high tuition fees on access to post-secondary educatoin for students from low and middle-income backgrounds. Statistics Canada reports that students from low-income families are less than half as likely to participate in university than those from high-income families.

Statistics Canada's Youth in Transition Survey tallied the reasons cited by high school graduates who did not participate in post-secondary education. By an overwhelming marin, the most frequently reported barrier to university and college for these students was "financial reasons"

A study conducted at the University of Western Ontario demonstrated that following the deregulation of graduate and professoinal user fees in Ontario, the participation rates of low-income families in those programs were reduced by one-half.

These results have been replicated by studies in the United States. Researchers at the University of California, LA found that for every $1,000 increase in tuition fees, enrolment rates dropped by 15%. The study demonstraed that the decrease in enrolment was composed "almost exclusively from minority and low-income students"

The Canadian Association of University Teachers recently analysed the long-term trend of tuition fees as a proportion of after-tax family income in Canada. They found that the burden of rising tuition fees has weighed far more heavily on the budgets of the poorest Canadians.

Conclusion
Post-seocndary education is a necessity for both individuals and Canadian society at large. The benefits of higher education and skills trainign range from better employment and a healthier lifestyle, to a better standard of living and greater life statisfaction. Higher average educational attainment across a society is correlated with reduced crime and greater civic engagement. By increasing the financial barriers to post-secondary education, policy maers are taking great risks with the future prosperity of Canadians.

The proponents of higher tuition fees in the countries described above have campaigned on the notion that the overall level of funding resultingfrom higher tuition fees will lead to better quality education. The lesson from other western countries has been that higher tuition fees are consistently offset by cuts in public funding, reduced access to higher education, massive student debt burdens, and no quality improvements. There is a lesson to be learned from these experiences for Canadian policy makers.

Day of Action in 14 Days


Day of Action
Is in 14 Days


So, only 14 days left until Feb. 7th Day of Action! The excitement is rising! I've seen tons of posters around the school about it - it's great.

Today's random information is about Federal funding cuts - one of the hopes of Feb.7th is to shed some light and make it known that there should be increased federal spending/financing for post-secondary education.
Federal Funding Cuts
For more than two decades, the Federation has called for the establishment of national standards for post-secondary education and research. The Federation proposes that a Ministry of Post-Secondary Education Act, modeled on the principles of the Canada Health Act, be implemented A Ministry, a dedicated transfer payment, and corresponding legislation will provide the federal government with a coherent and enforceable national vision for postsecondary education and research.
Since the introduction of the Canada Health and Social Transfer in 1996, accountability and transparency for federal post-secondary education transfers have diminished. The situation did not improve with the creation of the Canada Social transfer in 2004. In fact, there are currently no federal standards to guide provincial post-secondary education spending.
During the 2006 federal election campaign, Stephen Harper's Conservatives promised to create a dedicated transfer payment for post-secondary education. In February 206, a summit on post-secondary education and research organised by Canada's premiers called for the reinvestment of the $4.9 billion that has been cut from annual federal transfers to the provinces since 1993.

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Day of Action in 15 Days

Feb 7th Day of Action
Is In 15 Days
So, Day of Action is in 15 days! I'm getting more and more excited each day - it's like a little kid counting down to Christmas or something...
Anyway, since I've spent the past couple blog posts putting up random facts about Feb. 7th Day of Action, I figured that I would put some more up today - keep that ball rolling.
Today's cool fact is... Academic Amnesty!
What is Academic Amnesty?
This refers to an agreement, which is passed at an academic education council which cites that professors cannot schedule tests on February 7, nor are they to penalise students for missing a class, lab, or grade-wise if they so choose to participate in Day of Action events.

What Institutions Have Amnesty?

  • Okanagan College
  • University of British Columbia (Okanagan Campus)
  • College of New Caledonia
  • Simon Fraser University
  • Vancouver Community College
  • University of Victoria
  • Brandon University
  • University of Manitoba
  • University of Winnipeg
  • Algoma University
  • Carleton University
  • University of Guelph
  • Lakehead University
  • Laurentian University
  • University of Ottawa
  • Queen's University
  • Ryerson University
  • University of Toronto (UTM, St. George, Scarborough)
  • Trent University.
  • NSCAD University
  • Memorial University (Including Sir Wilfred Grenfell College)

Students have been granted amnesty, it should be taken advantage of! Walk out, make some noise - keep hoping that there is some light at the end of this post-secondary tunnel.

Monday, January 22, 2007

Day of Action in 16 Days

February 7th Day of Action
Is in only 16 Days!



In 16 days, students across Canada will walk out in protest of reducing post-secondary tuition fees - as well as each province lobbying for additonal requests to meet the needs of their post-secondary students.

In British Columbia for example, students are lobbying for: a 10% tuition fee reduction; increased funding for all post-secondary education institutions; free adult basic education; student grants for those in need (including graduate students); and increased funding for trades and apprenticeship students.


Some Background Information
In the early to mid-1990s, the federal government made massive cuts to post-secondary education transfer payments to the provinces. Most provinces passed on the cost of those cuts to students in the form of higher tuition fees. At the time, the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) articulated the view that rising fees would result in reduced access to post-secondary education. Later, in 2003, a wide variety of studies substantiate the view that an increase in fees precipitates declining rates of participation among low and middle income Canadians.

In 2002 Statistics Canada reported that a pronounced drop in participation rates from students from low and middle-income families. For the purposes of this study the cut off for low and middle income is household incomeless than $60,000. The decline in participation rates, recorded in 1999, was the first recorded decrease since Statistics Canada began tracking this data in 1965. In addition, several studies have been undertaken to examine the deregulation of tuition fees in Ontario. In each study, the investigators found a startling decline of students from lower and middle-income homes.

In response, the CFS has focused much of its campaigns and government relations work during the past five yeras on halting tuition fee increases and restoring federal transfer payments for post secondary education.

The Canadian Federation of Students' efforts have met with some success. Tuition fees in British Columbia were frozen between 1996 and 2002. In Newfoundland and Labrador, fees for all public post-secondary students have been frozen since 1999. In addition, fees for undergraduate and graduate university students were reduced by 10% each year in 2001/2002 and 2002/2003, with a further 5% reduction promised for 2003/2004. In Manitoba, fees were reduced by 10% in 2000/2001 and have remained frozen since. Tuition fees in Quebec have been frozen (for Quebec residents) for close to a decade.

Also, the federal government has ceased cutting and has begun restoring transfer payments. However, unfortunately, some provinces such as Ontario and Nova Scotia have continued to increase fees. BC recently deregulated tuition fees resulting in fee hikes of up to 100% and Ontario has deregulated graduate, professional, and some college fees. As well, the hard-fought freezes and reductions that have been won in some provinces are under attack by those who would have students shoulder more of the funding burden.

Friday, January 19, 2007

Day of Action


Post secondary students from across Canada are walking out on Wednesday, February 7th 2007 to protest increasing tuition costs and wanting government grants, not student loans.

So, for the next few weeks I'm going to be using my blog to pass on useful information.