OFL's People's Budget Comes to Sudbury

The Ontario Federation of  Labour's People's Budget held a hearing in Sudbury on Wednesday March 6th, the first of two Northern Ontario hearings.  The event attended by just over a dozen people allowed groups an individuals to make presentations to panel in a format similar to the province's budget consultations.  Presenters included senior's rights adovate, John Lindsay, representatives from the Sudbury Coaltion Against Poverty, Laurentian University economist, David Robinson, a representative of the Social Planning Council, a student representative and local artistic community leader Paul Loewenberg.

One general theme that emerged through the presentations was a need, particularly in Sudbury, for more housing.  The low vacancy rate, coupled with limited development of affordable and accessible apartment-style dwellings is making it difficult for those on fixed incomes (seniors and those on social assistance) to find, acquire and live in suitable units.

As many a budget hearings go, presenters were calling for new or greater expenditures for programs and services that are important to them and those they represent.  The most common means of paying for these were eliminating corporate tax cuts which were blamed for the current Ontario deficit.

Annette Reszczynski from the Social Planning Council discussed what a People's Budget should look like and talked about the perils of consultations.  She talked about how consulting without listening or giving people real power in the process can actually lead to greater disenchantment and apathy.  Sadly, there were no easy solutions to deal with this on a provincial scale, however, her concerns certainly resonated with me.

Following the end of the hearings a People's Budget white paper incorporating the recommendations given across the province will be published and shared with our legislators at Queen's Park as they work to set the priorities for the next fiscal year and beyond.  The OFL also sees this work as a tool to influence the inevitable impending election.

Familes forced to choose between retirement savings and education.

According to a study released by Statistics Canada on 19 May 2011 lower income families (<$32k/yr) cannot save for both retirement and post-secondary education for there children. This can be attributed to sharply rising tuition fees which are closely related to education savings.

Only 21% of families in the lowest fifth income bracket were able to affording saving for both retirement and post-secondary education. With 70% for new jobs requiring at minimum some post-secondary education it is not surprising that families tend to save first for their children’s education and then their retirement.

As per Statistics Canada,

“Even in households with the lowest incomes, proportionally speaking, more parents were putting aside money strictly for their child's postsecondary education than were preparing financially for their retirement only.”

If this trend continues, we should expect to see even more pressure placed on our already strained public pension programs, both with the demographic time-bomb of the baby boomers and the recession. This undermining of retirement savings with high tuition fees is the manifestation of the downloading of the cost of public programs (post-secondary education).

The only solution is for our newly elected (and re-elected) federal representatives to develop a national vision of post-secondary education, similar to the national Health Act, to guarantee equitable funding and accessibly across the country.

If nothing is done to mitigate this trend we will continue to set the preconditions for a perfect storm to see the end of retirement security in Canada. Regardless of political stripe continuing to downloading costs to pensions and private retirement savings can hardly be seen as responsible economic stewardship.

Globe and Mail Columnist Attacks the Ontario University

In a recent opinion piece, Globe and Mail columnist Margaret Wende effectively calls Ontario's Universities bloated, inefficient, unaccountable customer services institutions. Fortunately for the province, however, she points to the recently published book Academic Transformations as the solution to the problems faced by an allegedly unsustainable model for post-secondary education.

Wende argues,

"Yet the benefits of all this research are often remarkably obscure. What the market really needs is a lot less marginal research, and better ways to deliver utility courses such as Introduction to Thermodynamics. Ultimately, this means a two-tier university system, with a few elite research-intensive universities, and more teaching-centred ones. (The colleges are more efficient.)"

The benefits of research are often obscure? I am surprised such a ridiculously moronic statement made it way to the webpages of a somewhat intelligent and enlightened publication like the Globe and Mail. Its utter obserdity, I believe, speaks for itself. I challenge Ms. Wende to a thought-experiment. Mentally, travel back in time and stop all research whose benefits can be deemed obscure at that time and try to live a single day without the latter realised benefits of the research that she stopped.

As much as you, and many of our policy makers, wish and believe that a research model based on development and commercialisation yields the best bang-for-buck, it is only the tip of the iceberg and only can exist on top a large, broad foundation of basic (or obscure, if you prefer) body of research. The former, in most cases, is well tailored for the private sector since this is the final rung between idea and the marketplace and profits are foreseeable at this point. The latter is best suited for the public sector (i.e. Universities) since it is an investment in our collective idea and knowledge infrastructure providing the building blocks for entrepreneurs and businesses to develop products, services and intellectual property for the marketplace. But that is not the only benefit of strong public investment in basic (i.e. curiosity-driven research). We can also use it to educate our populace and provide a productive outlet for human creativity. This is why Universities exist, NOT "to efficiently deliver mass undergraduate education to 30 or 40 per cent of the population".

The argument of Wende's piece and this book are predicated on the assumption that the previous quote is the mission of our Universities and at, "Universities now do this job in the most expensive way possible". This is a dangerous premise to start from, however. It seems to me that the mass production of people with undergraduate degrees may look good on paper and help continue to supply the labour market it endangers the developing of a truly creative, analytical population with a culture of critical thinking. As Wende concedes, "U.S. commentator Walter Russell Mead remarks, taxpayers are not going to subsidize research in critical literary theory much longer". A narrowly focused research program based on commercial viability and the latest trends is a recipie for disaster chasing our brightest and most creative minds away and leaving us with narrow-thinkers and followers who have little use for academic freedom since they do what they are told and what is commonly acceptable rather than push the envelope.

At the end of the day this entire discussion is about money. Wende believes that Universities cost too much while I believe that they do not recieve sufficient public funding. While we claim to be amonst the most educated juristictions in the world I believe it is perverse that we invest the second lowest amount per student in all of North America and that we have the highest tuition fees in Canada. As for faculty salaries, one must consider the vast personal investment of over a decade of one's adult life that goes into training and the mortgage-size debtloads that emerge with no guarantee of return on investment. There is then the struggle to be considered for tenure, to maintain an active and dynamic research program, stay on top of the latest developments in pedagogy and your respective field to facilitate you teaching duties, participation in institutional governance, active involvement in one's community (both geographically and academically). University professor is not a 40 hour a week job. Despite all of these additional responsibilities Universities know that they have to compete amongst the private sector for the best minds.

Lets see public funding in Ontario's Universities at least meet the national average before we call them unsustainable. And please take a moment to reflect on the role of the University in society beyond being a degree factory before you advocate drastic (and I believe dangerous) changes to it. Just because somebody published a crappy book (which was also funded by tax dollars btw) about post-secondary education in Ontario does not mean they know everything and that they are correct in their premises, arguments and conclusions (just one of the many things I learned at Laurentian University).

Letter to the Editor of the Sudbury Star

We're No. One!

Sir/Madam,

I am quite surprised that you chose not to report on the Stats Canada report released yesterday stating Ontario's tuition fees are now the highest in the country. We also boast the lowest faculty to student ratio.

On the same day that this report was released the Laurentian University Senate voted overwhelming in support to endorse the Canadian Federation of Students-Ontario campaign to 'Drop Fees for a Poverty-Free Ontario', making them the only University to do so. In addition, Sudbury city council was the first municipality in Ontario to endorse the campaign and have been followed by the municipal councils of Markstay-Warren, St. Charles, Northeastern Manitoulin & the Islands, Iroquois Falls and Hearst. This stands as a testament to how the rising cost of education disproportionately affects the north.

On November the fifth Laurentian Students will congregate at the Great Hall cul-de-sac on campus at 14h00 to join other students, workers and concerned citizens at Bell Park at 14h30 where they will collectively stage a march to raise awareness of the growing in accessibility of post-secondary education to working families.

With 70% of new jobs requiring some form of post-secondary education, and with record unemployment in Northern Ontario and with 1.3 million Ontarians currently living in poverty we need an education system that is accessible to all.

Kindly,
Rafiq Rahemtulla

Letter to the Editor of the Sudbury Star

Rate dips, still among worst – Its Time to Drop Fees!

Sir/Madam,

With Sudbury boasting the third worst unemployment rate in the country it comes as no surprise that Sudbury City Council was the first municipal council in the province to endorse the Canadian Federation of Students-Ontario campaign to ‘Drop Fees for a Poverty-Free Ontario’.

Sadly, the statistics you report do not include over 3,000 USW 6500 members currently on strike nor does it take it to account the disproportionate distribution of unemployment amongst young people, aboriginal people, racialised people and other marginalized groups where these numbers can be twice as high.

With an estimated 70% of new jobs requiring some form of post-secondary education. And with Ontario boasting the second highest university tuition fees in the country that have increased annually between 4.5% and 8% it also comes as no surprise that Ontario has gone from a have to a have-not province by putting post-secondary education out of reach for many.

A student's family income is directly related to the probability that they will attend a post-secondary institution. I am deeply concerned what this means for young people who are and will be graduating from high school during the worst recession since the Great Depression. Universities all across the province are already reporting record numbers of financial aid applications. At the same time, Laurentian University had to slash its bursaries by $300,000 for this year and levy a tax on donations to subsidise its operations budget due to chronic underfunding. With more and more applicants for less and less bursary money students simply cannot afford to go to school anymore without incurring mortgage-sized loans.

A student’s geographic distance from a university is also directly related to the probability that they will attend a university. In the north distance is a real barrier to education and in May the Ontario government announced that it was eliminating the Distance Education Grant. This is why it comes as no surprise that many Northern communities, like Markstay-Warren, St Charles and Northeastern Manitoulin and the Islands and most recently Hearst, have also endorsed the campaign to ‘Drop Fees for a Poverty-Free Ontario’.

I encourage your readers to join students, workers and concerned citizens on November 5th at 2:30pm at Bell Park to march in solidarity for a more accessible and better funded post-secondary education system. Only by increasing access to the great social equalizer, education, to all can the cycle of poverty be broken and can Ontario return to productivity and prosperity.

Rafiq Rahemtulla
Vice President
Laurentian University Graduate Students’ Association | l’Association des étudiantes et étudiants aux études supérieures de ‘Université Laurentienne
Local 110, Canadian Federation of Students

Releasing Books into the Wild

I just released my first book into the wild after being a member of Bookcrossing . I hope someone finds it and logs finding it. This paradigm of global book sharing is brilliant and I feel great about finally joining in.

Letter to the Editor of the Globe and Mail

Sir/Madam,
The calls for Mr. Clement’s resignation from members and supporters of the Greater Sudbury area continue to roll in without any coverage from your publication. The Minister of Industry had publicly taken the side of a foreign company in a major labour dispute affecting over 3000 Canadian workers when he should have remained neutral. He has insulted the fair, economically diverse and vibrant City of Greater Sudbury. By having a national leader speak so poorly of our city hurts future investment potential and hurts civic pride and to do so haphazardly and without merit is reckless and shameful. Furthermore, taking sides during a labour dispute cripples the autonomy of both Vale Inco and the United Steelworkers in working towards a fair contract and could have derailed and delayed progress in their negotiations. As such Mr. Clement must issue an immediate formal apology along with his resignation.
-Rafiq Rahemtulla – Sudbury, ON