2013-05-22T01:44:56-04:00 Nora Loreto http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/author/index.php?author=nora-loreto Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Nora Loreto Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2078299 2012-11-09T15:10:47-05:00 2013-01-09T05:12:01-05:00

Nora Loreto http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nora-loreto/
The poppy, crystallized as a symbol of war and remembrance from John McCrae's poem In Flanders Fields, is worn by most Canadians for a few weeks leading up to November 11.
Most Canadians, except me.

Growing up, I was deeply involved in Remembrance Day ceremonies in my hometown. Twice, I went to Holland to sing at Remembrance Day ceremonies. I spoke at Legions on the importance of remembrance as being necessary to peace.

But, as the Canadian government has demonstrated its support for foreign wars, the symbol of the poppy has been hijacked. While it remains a symbol of peace and remembrance for many, it has also become a symbol of support of Canada's current war ambitions.



Wrapped together with the yellow ribbon and a maple leaf, the poppy symbolizes a great myth: that there exists "just war" and that, through war, Canadians have been granted their freedom. Canada has been engaged in such a war for a decade, in Afghanistan.

When I see billions of dollars spent on fighter jets, the same amount of money that could eliminate tuition fees for all Canadian college and university students, I question what exactly we are remembering.

When I see veterans dying as a result of suicide, that Canadians are coming home with post-traumatic stress disorder and are being deserted by the government that sent them to Afghanistan, I question what exactly we are remembering.

BLOG CONTINUES BELOW SLIDESHOW



When I see statistics of the quality of life in Afghanistan or the rise in civilian deaths since the invasion in 2001, I question what exactly we are remembering.
Because, if we truly meant that we supported an end to all wars when we wear our poppies, surely Canadians could prevent our government from marching toward war. If our desire to remember led to a stated political will to end war, Canadian troops would have never been sent to Afghanistan in the first place.

The red poppy has instead become so normalized that it's simply something that we wear. We leave them on our sun visors in our cars. We lose them. We buy others. We say we remember but we don't do what's next to turn our remembrance into action.

Remembrance isn't enough to stop war.

In 1933, in England, the Cooperative Women's Guild started to distribute white poppies as symbols of peace. Rather than glorify and honour the dead of one particular country, the white poppy commemorates all war dead and calls for and end to all war.

The Peace Pledge Union continues to distribute these white poppies and, in 2005, actually came to an agreement with the British Legion on distributing the white poppy. In Canada, many pacifist and anti-war organizations make their own white poppies and distribute them in time for Remembrance Day.

Remembrance Day remains a political public holiday that, for me, is an important time to talk about Canada's role in war today.

My white poppy has turned a little grey as I wear it on my jacket year-round. But wearing a poppy isn't enough. All Canadians who support peace, whether they wear a white poppy, a red poppy, a poppy with a fleur-de-lys in the centre or nothing, must actively oppose any government agenda that seeks to send more Canadians to participate in foreign conflict.

Otherwise, wearing a poppy is an empty gesture, a socialized custom that has become as normal as dressing up for Halloween.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1790701 2012-08-17T11:55:50-04:00 2012-10-17T05:12:09-04:00

Nora Loreto http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nora-loreto/
But, I'm lucky. I don't wear hijab and I don't carry a kirpan. I was raised Catholic and, like my bedroom wall growing up, my National Assembly chambers is adorned with a crucifix. Elections dredge up as many issues that can be dredged so it hasn't surprised me that race, racism, religious tolerance and xenophobia have come up along Québec's election campaign trail. I have been surprised at how blatant it's been.

I'm used to Ontario's elections, where the closest thing to xenophobia was the Progressive Conservatives' reaction to the Liberals' proposed scheme for hiring immigrants.

On August 14, leader of the Parti Québécois Pauline Marois introduced her party's plans to ban religious symbols among public service workers. Muslim women would have to remove their hijab to renew someone's license. Sikh men working within a government department would have to remove their turbans. No word on whether or not a long beard is a religious symbol or just an awesome beard.

In the midst of the announcement, Marois admitted that the Catholic symbol of Jesus crucified on the cross that sits in the National Assembly would stay. So, personal religious observances are bad, but state-sanctioned religious symbols are good.

From former Action démocratique du Québec member of the National Assembly, and current independent candidate Claude Roy who said that Québec needs more Asians and fewer Arabs, to Coalition Avenir du Québec leader Francois Legault talking how young Quebecers should work harder, like Asians, there's been no shortage of attention paid to peoples' races, religions or languages.

The comments and party promises all say, very clearly, that to truly be a Quebecer, you must be Francophone, white and Catholic. Bonus points if your family descended from the Filles du Roi.

This is textbook intolerance and xenophobia.

The threat to Québec's heritage and nationhood isn't a civil servant wearing a hijab. It's the undoing of the social services that have helped Quebec grow into the distinct province it is today. It's increases to daycare fees, proposed by the Liberals. It's tuition fee increases, proposed by the PQ, Liberals and CAQ. It's a lack of language and social integration services that I would access to better fit in.

This xenophobic rhetoric will only create resentment among people who have a right to be frustrated with a depressed economy but who may misplace their frustration towards non-white, non-Francophone Quebecers. Its victims will be the thousands of Quebecers whose personal liberties and freedoms will be eliminated, at the promise of protecting the culture that they're a part of.

In its history, the territory occupied by Québec has only been French for a small amount of time. First Nations inhabited this province since time immemorial and continue to practice and evolve their own traditions, languages and cultures throughout the province.

Marois, Charest and Legault must remember that this land has always been home to different people and languages. And, today, those of us who have come here do so wanting to be part of it; wanting to be Quebecois.

Luckily my government has never defined me and I've been welcomed in Québec City by amazing people. I'll keep struggling to learn French and find employment, and rely on people I've met here for social supports. Unfortunately, it's clear that regardless who wins, those of us who support freedom of religion and oppose racism are going to have our work cut out for us.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1711347 2012-07-27T15:23:07-04:00 2012-09-26T05:12:33-04:00

Nora Loreto http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nora-loreto/ buzzing over the announcement made by Léo Bureau-Blouin that he will run for the Parti Québécois during the next election.

This will push the former FECQ president into a new kind of politics. Will he be able to continue the fight against the tuition fee hike in this forum?

I loathe people who get involved in student politics as a springboard into partisan political life. In Ontario, all three political parties have been a disaster for higher education. Bob Rae's NDP increased tuition fees twice in one year. Mike Harris' Progressive Conservatives deregulated tuition fees and many programs experienced double-digit increases. Dalton McGuinty's Liberals maintained Harris' fee levels and layered an up to 71 per cent increase on top of them.

When I worked with people whose main interest was getting involved in party politics through their students' union, it was more often the case that their interests were with the party and not the students they were supposed to serve.

Rather than supporting what students want or need, many young partisans simply justified why a particular policy of the government should be supported.

When I see a student leader in Ontario go on to work for the Liberal government, the same group of people who have increased student debt to nearly $30,000 for a four-year undergraduate degree, my blood boils.

But, I think Bureau-Blouin's move is smart and important.

This past year, he has been the least radical of the three spokespersons. With his term finished, seeking a seat in the National Assembly makes a lot of sense.

He's challenging the current Liberal Delegate Minister of Finance Alain Paquet in the riding of Laval-des-Rapides. Aside from the Minister of Education Recreation and Sport and the Premier himself, the Ministry of Finance is arguably the most culpable for the tuition fee policies that the student federations have opposed.

If nothing else, Bureau-Blouin's campaign will be a symbol of the clash of ideals that the students on the streets have had with Liberal politicians in Québec.

If Bureau-Blouin wins, he'll have the chance to carry on the fight that has been waging in the streets to the National Assembly. With their current policy of supporting tuition fees indexed to inflation, having someone like Bureau-Blouin there could amount to enough pressure to ensure the PQ's policies don't become more regressive.

Entering into politics is an individualistic move. You put yourself forward as a leader and hope that more people agree with you than with the people you run against. This is the exact opposite of leaders who emerge within social movements, where support is earned by working beside others, then to coalesce their opinions and speak on their behalf.

Bureau-Blouin's entry into politics is not popular with many student activists.

But, it does signal a maturity of the student movement in Québec. It's also a sign that the mainstream political machine takes these protests seriously.

As the protests are set to reignite in August, Québec may well be in the middle of an election. Regardless of whether or not they have been in the streets, supporters of the student movement in Québec will have the chance to oust Charest's Liberals. Voting against the Liberals will be a symbolic act of solidarity with the student movement.

In Laval-des-Rapides, folks there will be able to not just vote symbolically, but directly against Charest's Finance Minister and for one of the movement's most recognized spokespeople.
The strength of political movements is demonstrated by the ability to force decision-makers into making change. Bureau-Blouin's entry into politics is not going to succeed or fail the student demands in Québec politics.

However, he should be an ally and an advocate within the party. Since the Parti Québécois started the ball rolling on tuition fee hikes, it can use all the internal help it can get.

CORRECTION: In a previous version of this post, Alain Paquet was misidentified as the current Liberal Minister of Finance.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1624570 2012-06-25T12:08:52-04:00 2012-08-25T05:12:04-04:00

Nora Loreto http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nora-loreto/ weekend of protests in Toronto was a classroom, of sorts.

Hundreds of police descended on the city from across Canada and tested new techniques of crowd control on protesters and non-protesters alike.

It seemed that the consensus among decision-makers was that the easiest way to control a protest movement was to illegalize movement and convergence.

Dalton McGuinty's Liberals enacted the so-called secret law, the Public Works Protection Act, with very little public discussion. The law enabled the mass arrest, detention, search and pat down of thousands of us on the streets that weekend.

Using this tactic to limit the protests was easy; even if it were against the Charter, a court ruling would come months, if not years after the G20 leaders and their convoys left Toronto.

Like police, politicians learned a lot from the G20 too. They learned that this tactic, while morally questionable, worked.

Similar tactics have been used during the Québec student protests.

Laws have been used as blunt instruments to try and stop protests. Among other restrictions, Québec's Law 78 makes it illegal to protest near a CÉGEP or university, or to be in a crowd of people totaling 50 or more unless the police have been notified in advance.

Montréal passed a bylaw making it illegal to wear masks at rallies. This has yet to deter AnarchoPanda, the famous, mask-wearing protester who has become a symbol of this ridiculous limit to personal expression.

In Québec City, a municipal bylaw was passed to ensure the 'peace and good order' of the city. This prohibits night-time rallies, the kind that have been a regular occurrence in Montréal.

The secret law during the G20 and the list of laws passed in Québec to quell protests share a common characteristic: they're virtually impossible to enforce consistently.

Unsurprisingly, they haven't been enforced consistently.

I participated in two rallies in Gatineau at the end of May and beginning of June during the national meeting of the Canadian Federation of Students. Despite the heavy police presence, hundreds of us marched through the streets as if no laws forbade it.

Tens of thousands of Québecers marched on June 22 in Montréal and Québec City too.
And, despite the massive crowds that stayed past 11:00 p.m. for the St. Jean Baptiste concerts, no one was arrested for breaking Law 78 or Québec City's municipal law.

However, protests in Québec City that followed the last attempt at negotiations between students and police resulted in a police crack down. Sixty-four people were arrested, including the lone Member of National Assembly for Québec Solidaire Amir Khadir.

Québecers who oppose the law argued in an editorial that, among other concerns, Law 78 gives too much discretionary power to police. Matt Gurney at the National Post argued that the selective application of Law 78 has lead to much of its criticism.

What good is a law that, once passed, is applied selectively? It places a tremendous amount of power in the hands of police who have proven unable to yield such powers appropriately.
None of these laws are actually intended to bring order to society. They're intended to give government and police the cover to restrict the rights and freedoms that are supposed to be guaranteed to us by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Intimidation is a strong tool of government but it's not going to make any social movement go away.
Canadians should be offended by these attacks on all of us. If our freedoms can vanish by a hasty decision of our local city council, just how free are we really?

And, will we let them reach our breaking point?]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1466076 2012-05-01T08:53:15-04:00 2012-07-01T05:12:24-04:00

Nora Loreto http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nora-loreto/ mainstream media has gradually increased its attention toward Canada's largest (according to one historian), longest and most significant student action ever.

Unfortunately, the coverage has been fraught with assumptions dressed as fact and generalizations that hide the truth behind Québec's impressive social movement.

Québec students have fought to pay the lowest fees in Canada. For university, it's only $130 per year lower than Newfoundland and Labrador, the second least expensive province in Canada when it comes to post-secondary education. For college, their system of education replaces Grades 12 and 13 with free access to college (known as "CEGEP").

Liberal Premier Jean Charest has proposed a 75 per cent increase over seven years. If college fees are introduced, tuition fees will have increased infinitely. It will likely remain the case that Québec fees will still be among the lowest in Canada but increased fees will open the door to more significant increases in the future, like was the case after "nominal" fees were introduced in England.

Many right-wing pundits have rejected the students' demands by focusing on their motives, rather than their goals. A popular word emanating from this chorus of columnists is "entitled." Canada's largest strike in history is just about entitlement, apparently.

But, to say that Québec students are entitled attempts to skirt the issue and ignores some important facts.

In real dollars, Charest paid less for his university education than Québec students do today. Now, he wants his generation of baby boomers to pay less in taxes. The result is robbery of the young to pay for the old. It is hard to see how students are the entitled ones in this scenario.

Entitlement is the word that some will use to describe a social movement that fights for what should be available for all without cost. Right after Ontario was revealed to be the most expensive province in which to study for the third year in a row, Ontario students called for a just a fraction of what Québec students are fighting for. We too were labeled as being entitled, by some.

Young Ontarians are part of a cohort that collectively owes more money in student debt to the Canadian government than any generation in history. The entitlement label is laughable and entirely inaccurate.

Like students in Québec, when Ontario students fight for lower tuition fees, we're not acting out. We're defending access to a precious public service.

But Ontario students have failed to stop tuition fee hikes, while Québec students are winning.

Tuition fees drive social inequality and student activists know this. Ontario's higher education system has gradually moved away from enabling people to better their social standing through education, to further entrenching social inequality. Students who can pay their tuition fees and life expenses up front will pay less than half of what their poorer classmates will pay. Women, racialized students, disabled students and everyone else who makes less money on average, will pay more through compound interest on student loans.

Québecers know the value of education cannot be measured in user fees. They see Ontario with the highest tuition fees and the lowest per student funding and they know where they'll end up if they allow their government to open the door to fee increases, even just a crack.

Arguing that the fight waged by Québec students is because of entitlement is like debating philosophy while standing in quicksand. Québec students are fighting Charest's tuition fees to protect something else: a post-secondary education system that provides the opportunity for economic mobility and opportunity.

Québec students are not entitled, whiny, bratty, or whatever other adjective many journalists or commentators in the English press have called them. They are smart. They can see a fork in the river of Québec's future and are vigorously trying to force Charest to steer left.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1440603 2012-04-23T11:17:43-04:00 2012-06-23T05:12:02-04:00

Nora Loreto http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nora-loreto/ injected a conversation about increasing the taxes of the ultra-rich into the political sphere.

She placed her party's support for the budget contingent increasing income taxes by two per cent for Ontarians who make more than $500,000. Forget the one per cent who in Canada, make an average income of $387,400, according to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Horwath wants to make the elite of the elite pay just two per cent more. On Monday, April 23, Dalton McGuinty agreed to the tax increase.

Some of these ultra-rich work in the universities. Horwath's tax for the +$500,000 will affect just four employees in the entire sector: three presidents and one professor. They will take home two per cent less of their taxpayer and student funded salaries.

In post-Drummond Ontario, how could anyone working at a university find themselves among the half-millionaires club, let alone the one per cent? Despite Drummond's assertion that financial ruin would beset Ontario if university workers' wages weren't tackled, he missed the opportunity to recommend cost savings through implementing a cap on public sector compensation.

There are 248 lucky university folks and 49 even more lucky college folks who rise above $250,000. These salaries reach $89 million when added together. Number one is a staff person, the president and CEO of the University of Toronto's Asset Management Corporation. In 2011, William Moriarty made $655,995. Number two is the luckiest Canadian of all: For working no days at the University of Waterloo in 2011, Governor General David Johnston maintained his $610,504 salary. Waterloo issued a statement to say this is totally normal. They issued a nearly identical statement last year.

In fairness, maybe it is normal. Former vice-president administration at Ryerson University Linda Grayson was paid just over $270,000 in 2011 despite having left Ryerson in 2010.

The third-highest earner is also the highest paid professor. Former Goldman Sachs vice-president investment banker Kent Womack was paid $560,928 last year.

The highest paid trio in the college sector is the presidents of Seneca, Humber and Conestoga colleges: David Agnew ($396,360), John Davies ($427,915) and John Tibbits ($409,900), respectively. Davies pulls to the front when his nearly $13,000 in benefits are added to his salary.

Ontario's public sector salary disclosure (or, the Sunshine list) catalogues everyone working at colleges or universities who makes more than $100,000. This can range from workers who, after decades of service and a strong union, have finally cracked the threshold, to celebrity professors like Richard Florida (he made just over $370,000). Or runner-up mayoral candidates, like George Smitherman, who made $158,833 for specially advising Ryerson president Sheldon Levy, who made $360,000.

These salaries should be considered against the increasing costs borne by students. Built into the 2012 Ontario budget is the assumption that students will pay another five per cent increase in tuition fees.

If the NDP get their way, only four men in the entire college and university sector--one of whom didn't actually work in the sector last year--will see their taxes increase by two per cent.
There is wasteful spending in the college and university sector but the Sunshine list refutes Drummond's claim. It's not at the faculty level and certainly not at the support staff level.
Institutional presidents, the ones who dominate the top of the list, have the closest ties to government and greatest influence over policy. This is likely why administrative salaries have been allowed to balloon while students have had to pick up the tab through an education tax that has increased by five per cent annually.

Horwath's exercise has demonstrated the popularity of tax increases for the ultra rich, but it could have been extended further. Existing systems of wealth re-distribution must be used to offset the perceived need to increase tuition fees through corporate taxes and extending the definition of ultra-rich to the entire one per cent.

Until a tax increase for the one per cent is normalized public policy, and an education tax for students is considered outrageous, social inequality in Ontario will continue to grow.
There were no students on the Sunshine list.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1341956 2012-03-15T12:07:45-04:00 2012-05-15T05:12:01-04:00

Nora Loreto http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nora-loreto/ Honourable Glen Murray is having a difficult time as Minister of Training, Colleges, and Universities for Ontario. In the past month alone, he has had to deal with two anonymous policy leaks that have derailed possible implementation plans for radical changes to the college and university sectors.

This struggle was no more obvious than at his March 9 speech at the Canadian Club.

Ranging from the Golem to the evils of state capitalism, many of us in the audience were left confused by Murray's speech, if not afraid for the future of college and university education in Canada's largest province.

Statements like: Classrooms are now empty because students no longer attend class, the private sector must pay for institutional operations, and that the non-existent Ontario Online Institute will be better than Athabasca University, made the few of us in the room who were either students or faculty exchange worried glances.

Murray has no shortage of enthusiasm for his job. However, passion is no substitute for sound policy, and much of the policy ideas unveiled so far by this Minister have been widely panned.
Despite downplaying the recommendations proposed in the leaked document dubbed Three Cubed, Murray's speech confirmed that Three Cubed's policies are being taken much more seriously than Murray or his staff have lead people to believe.

Three Cubed outlines a plan to shift at least one-third college and university courses online, force all institutions to offer three semesters worth of courses, shrink all undergraduate degrees to three years, and penalize institutions that don't comply with the above policies with a three per cent budget cut.

Since the premature release of this document, no post-secondary organizations have endorsed the document in whole or in part.

Murray said that Three Cubed was simply research into broader global trends, and just one idea of many floating around the ether of the Ministry. After the Canadian Club speech, I'm left wondering why did the Minister's rhetoric draw so heavily from Three Cubed?

Murray's introduction actually referenced the same stories as Three Cubed's introduction, likely revealing the report's author.

It's possible that Murray's Canadian Club debut as Minister was supposed to unveil Three Cubed as his revolutionary plan for college and university education. It's also possible that once Three Cubed was leaked, the speech was then supposed to highlight plans for the new tuition fee framework for 2012, thwarted by yet another, unsourced leak featured in the Toronto Star.

The "standard tuition levels" leak lead to a last-minute and quiet announcement made before noon on Thursday, March 8 that tuition fees would rise by five per cent.

We're left to guess about what impact either of these leaks had on his speech the day after.

Murray has a tight rope to walk. He must try to keep the students in line, placate professors, and support the institutional presidents, all while implementing his government's priorities. These leaks suggest however that Murray lacks support from possibly all groups in the sector.

Rhetoric such as: "We have to work smarter, not harder," as he proclaimed in his speech, is not going to win him any friends. Students fail to see how shorter study periods, lower quality through mandatory online courses, and policy ideas written by people with an obvious lack of understanding of the sector are examples of working smarter.

If Murray is going to be able to deliver the priorities of the Premier with as little friction as possible, he must abandon these hackneyed propositions. If he is already following orders, he must listen to the dissent from those of us who work or study in the post-secondary sector and relay them to his bosses.

The Minister also needs to stop imagining the private sector as the saviour of college and university funding. The private sector pays nothing toward the operating costs of colleges and universities and students and staff have good reason to be wary of private sector funding. Corporate tax revenues are the best way to achieve greater funding of the private sector for post-secondary. This government slashed $2.4 billion in corporate taxes last year.

Considering his approach and the reception from sectoral groups, I predict that Minister Murray will not survive in this role past Premier McGuinty's next Cabinet shuffle. This will be a shame; Murray is the only cabinet minister who started his political life as a student activist outside of party politics, with the Canadian Federation of Students.

If only he would listen to students now.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1275789 2012-02-14T08:19:36-05:00 2012-04-15T05:12:01-04:00

Nora Loreto http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nora-loreto/ $1,500-per-day pay cheque will recommend what to cut, who to lay off, and how much to pay people now and in their retirement.

Not surprisingly, insiders in each sector are anticipating the worst -- especially those of us in education.

Already the news seems grim. Christina Blizzard from Sun Media's QMI Agency wrote that Ontarians should expect to see full-day kindergarten recommended for the guillotine. Those of us in the post-secondary education sector are anticipating recommendations for cuts that are similarly significant.

Drummond is somewhat of an insider in the post-secondary system and is familiar with the chronic issues of underfunding and student debt. This means that if he makes recommendations to find savings in the post-secondary sector, they will likely be more complex than simply recommending a wage freeze.

In addition to his experience as a former TD Bank executive, Drummond holds an endowed chair in public policy at Queen's University. He was a member of Bob Rae's 2005 higher education review panel, which called for the implementation of tuition fee deregulation and income-contingent loan repayment schemes.

Deregulation would have allowed institutions to increase their tuition fees by any amount. To justify this, the majority of middle class students would have access to more loans and take on more debt. While this plan would likely see some new grants given to the poorest students, it would also throw the door wide open for private lenders to profit from the new lending market. The latter would exacerbate social inequalities by forcing low-income people to pay the most for their education through a longer period of interest-accruing student debt repayment.

Students were critical of Rae's report and the government did not enact its more extreme recommendations. Instead, McGuinty managed to normalize perpetual tuition fee hikes leading to the highest fees in the country.

In May 2010, Drummond released his own report on post-secondary education, co-authored with fellow TD Bank economist Shahrzad Mobasher Fard. They acknowledge that funding reductions have placed a huge strain on students' ability to pay for higher tuition fees. They reference the recommendations in the contentious book, Academic Transformations, and suggest that shorter study periods, fewer tenured professors, and teaching-only universities should be mandated to save money. The book was criticized by faculty, staff and students after its release in 2009.

If the 2005 and 2010 reviews are indicative of Drummond's current thinking on post-secondary education, Ontarians should expect that his Commission on the Reform of Ontario's Public Services will not simply recommend massive cuts to the sector.

Instead, we can expect any of the following: a call for changes to the Ontario Student Assistance Plan (OSAP) to target aid and debt more directly; a call to review post-secondary teachers' pensions; wage restraint for non-unionized college and university workers; hiring fewer professors and the creation of cheaper forms of educational delivery such as online education; and the re-emergence of three-year degrees. He is likely to also take aim at McGuinty's new tuition grant program.

We may also see another attempt to sell income-contingent loan repayment schemes.

Regardless of what happens tomorrow, students will find themselves among nurses, unemployed Ontarians, teachers, early childcare educators, social workers, and millions of other Ontarians who will find themselves defending their sector from Drummond's recommended cuts.

While the report's recommendations may be possible to predict, so too will the opposition that we will raise. Together, defenders of public services are going to try to make it politically impossible for McGuinty to implement any of the cuts or regressive policy changes that Drummond recommends.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1250417 2012-02-02T14:21:36-05:00 2012-04-03T05:12:01-04:00

Nora Loreto http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nora-loreto/
I would use it to make education less expensive by reducing tuition fees.

During the Ontario election, Dalton McGuinty had the same idea. He promised to use $430 million to reduce tuition fees. But somehow, between Oct. 6 and today, he has figured out a way to obscure this promise and anger thousands of needy Ontario students.

Liberal candidates across Ontario promised to reduce tuition fees dozens of times to Ontario news outlets. Despite these promises, the government has started issuing a grant equivalent to 25 per cent of average undergraduate tuition fees rather than actually reducing tuition fees.

They have also introduced extremely restrictive criteria for who is eligible to receive this grant and clawed back other forms of assistance.

If you graduated from high school before 2008, regardless of your income, you are ineligible for this grant. If you're part-time, from outside of Ontario or if your parents make more than $160,000 regardless of whether or not they help pay your fees, you're ineligible for the grant. Fewer than one third of Ontario students will receive this grant and just over 10 per cent have applied to-date.

As some students receive a new grant, the majority will have to pay for higher tuition fees. This is a far cry from the promises that the Liberals made.

Normally, grants are a necessary and welcomed mechanism used to help alleviate students' financial struggles. The problem is that Dalton promised a fee reduction.

When tuition fees are reduced, funding is increased to institutions by government, and students pay less for their education. Tuition fees make up about 50 per cent of the operating budgets of colleges and universities. This is up from 20 per cent in the early 1990s.

Yes, grants can help students pay for high tuition fees. They are essentially a Band-Aid to mitigate the effect of high fees for students when they need it most. But when tuition fees no longer pose a barrier, grants are unnecessary.

This is the heart of the issue with Dalton's grant promise. A tuition fee reduction would help all students and make education cost less. A grant only helps a few while the rest are left to contend with another year's tuition fee hikes.

Next fall, tuition fees are set to rise five per cent for the seventh consecutive year. Dalton's 30 per cent tuition fee reduction has somehow turned into a five per cent increase.

Students have been calling for a tuition fee reduction since 2006 and are rightfully frustrated by this broken promise. To be willfully misleading and say that your government will reduce tuition fees during an election, and then to claim to be surprised when students are angry is simply political game playing.

Nationally, Canadians owe $15 billion in student debt. Students who borrow to finance their education often end up paying twice what students who could afford it pay.

In the aftermath of the election, it has become clear to students that this promise was little more than pandering to parents who were likely to vote Liberal.

Considering how desperate thousands of students are as a result of high fees, debt, and costs of living, playing with our hopes and dashing them once re-elected is not only unfair, it's cruel.
It is for these reasons that students marched on Wednesday in 16 towns and cities across Ontario, demanding access for all students and an end to the current practice of requiring students to pay $30,000 on average for an undergraduate education.
]]>