The Dominion - tuition fees

Three ways Quebec can freeze tuition without raising taxes

Tim McSorley — Sun, 19 Aug 2012 20:51:34 +0000

What the media isn't telling you about government spending in Quebec

MONTREAL—Everything and its opposite has been said about Quebec's historic student strike. Strikers and their vocal supporters have been pitted against hostile opinions from the government and middle class Quebeckers. At the heart of much of the debate is concern that without a tuition fee increase the government will instead raise taxes. As Jonathan Mercier, a government lawyer and father of three, explained recently, he supports the principles behind the student strike, but he simply has no faith that the government of Quebec will not raise taxes, leaving no money in his wallet.

Mercier isn't alone in distrusting the government: According to a July 2012 poll, IPSOS Reid found that 95 per cent of Canadians do not trust their politicians. Combine this lack of trust with a constant squeeze on middle class wallets—debt to disposable income ratio for the average Canadian family hit a new record high this summer of 152 per cent—and you have an explosive situation when a student knocks on your door asking for a freeze on their tuition.

With that in mind, here are three quick and dirty ways for finding $300 million under the Quebec Finance Minister’s pillow, without having to raise taxes:

1. Uncovering corruption leads to lower prices in construction industry

The impact of the provincially appointed Charbonneau Commission into allegations of government corruption has already been felt in municipalities across Quebec. In 2011, Quebec City initially forecast a $170 million budget for its road works and infrastructure repairs. However, following the start of the commission's hearings, the construction companies lowered their prices, offering the same services for $130 million: a 25 per cent “savings.” Investigations into corruption are said to be leading construction companies to cease their collusion. According to its annual budget, the government of Quebec plans to spend over $9 billion on road work and infrastructure over the next few years. Even if prices for the provincial government only fall by half as much, let’s say 10 per cent, that equates to $900 million more in the pockets of taxpayers. Eliminating this “subsidy” to the construction industries, known as “extras,” could finance free university education.

Savings: at least $900 million per year.

2. Stop subsidizing the pollution of mining companies

In its 2012 budget, the government of Quebec included $2.2 billion in environmental debt to account for orphan sites. Orphan sites are toxic waste sites left behind when a mining, gas or petroleum company has finished exploiting its allotted land. The government of Quebec refuses to reveal the real costs of cleaning all contaminated sites, noting only that there are at least 679 contaminated sites and that cleanup costs are pegged at $2.2 billion. When the minister in charge of mines, Serge Simard, was asked who will foot the bill for the cleanup of the mines, he was unambiguous: “For sure, the people of Quebec will be the ones paying. It won't be the Martians paying, it will be the people of Quebec.”

Savings: at least $2.2 billion

3. Rethink or eliminate the Plan Nord

The Plan Nord, which aims to ramp up resource development in the northern 70 per cent of the province, seems to be a perfect demonstration of why taxpayers are stuck with never-ending provincial deficits. Studies show that government officials are making unprecedented and unexpected gifts to mining companies. Before the reform to Quebec mining royalties in 2010, the provincial government received $287 million in royalties from mining companies over a 10-year period. Previously considered one of the most generous royalty programmes on the planet, Quebec has since reformed its system, increasing the rate from 12 to 16 per cent in royalties on profits (but not on total production). Quebec should now, in theory, be receiving $400 million per year from an annual mineral production of $8 billion. Profitable mining companies that were once made to invest in infrastructure, such as roads and ports, have now been told the Quebec government will support them via Plan Nord. Over the next 25 years, the government estimates $82 billion will be spent on the Plan Nord (roughly 50 per cent from Hydro-Quebec, 30 per cent from the government and 20 per cent from companies) generating $14.2 billion. The hidden social and environmental costs would be roughly $6.15 billion. We can therefore expect an $8.45 billion deficit over the next 25 years for the Plan Nord.

Savings:
1. Apply the 16 per cent royalty on total mineral production instead of on profits: $1.28 billion in revenue per year.
2. Require companies to build and maintain their own roads: $2.8 billion in savings over 25 years.
3. Rethink the Plan Nord so that it will be affordable for taxpayers, socially just for First Nations and ecologically sound for Earthlings and Martians: at least $8.45 billion in savings over 25 years.

Luca Palladino is a HEC Business School graduate who studied capitalism to understand the nature of the beast. He studied economics but had to read Adam Smith and Karl Marx in secret because they only taught him math at school. You can follow his work at @lukaesque.

John and the crooks

Quebec Student Strike Marches Into Eleventh Week

Tim McSorley — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:37:04 +0000

Fifteen thousand take to Montreal streets as Quebec government plays semantics, blocks negotiations

MONTREAL—It didn't take long; as always, the consensus among the media came quickly: "Downtown turns into battlefield," "Another demonstration goes sour," "Montreal student demonstration turns violent," "Violence breaks out during student protest"...

At the end of a day where 15,000 people took to the streets, a day that saw the provincial government play the worst kind of politics during negotiations with student representatives, you'd be hard-pressed to get any of that from the night's headlines.

Also invisible from those opening lines were any mention of police actions—actions which, if you were watching the live stream from CUTV, checking out clips on Youtube, or even following nearly any Twitter feed (let alone if you were actually at the protest)—did more to set off tensions than anything protesters did two nights ago.

The events of April 26 were set in motion by Education Minister Line Beauchamp's announcement that she was expelling the Coalition Large de l'Association pour une Solidarite Syndicale Etudiante from the negotiating session, which were meant to find a resolution to the 11-week-old student strike that has swept the province.

CLASSE represents 50 per cent of the 180,000 students on strike and was largely responsible for launching the strike in the first place. It has also been a constant thorn in the side of the government, organizing the most radical acts of civil disobedience and maintaining a firm line demanding the continuation of the province's tuition fee freeze.

Why were they expelled? After the coalition adopted a clear position against violence towards people, but encouraged civil disobedience, Minister Beauchamp demanded that CLASSE agree to a 48-hour truce for negotiations. During this time, the union would be allowed to organize traditional protests (which it did Wednesday afternoon), but not engage in economic disruption. While CLASSE did not have a mandate to sign a truce, it did state that it had no disruptive actions planned for the next 48 hours.

The Federation des Etudiants Universitaire du Quebec as well as the Federation des Etudiants Collegial du Quebec (FEUQ and FECQ) had already previously spoken out against "violent actions," including acts of vandalism and civil disobedience.

On Monday at 4pm, all three associations sat down with government representatives for the first time since the strike began.

Less than 40 hours later though, it was all over.

Since the start of the strike, CLASSE has maintained a website featuring a Google calendar that showed all student actions across the province, including those that involved actions that the government defines as disruptive or violent. This didn't appear to be a problem to start the truce, but it did serve as the excuse to end it. The ostensible reason was a march last Tuesday night that was announced on the Google calendar included at least one count of property destruction (a broken window), and confrontation with police, resulting in five arrests.

Clearly looking for a pretext to attempt once again to split the tuition freeze movement and to marginalize the association with the most radical—and persistent—membership, Minister Beauchamp took to the airwaves at 2pm Wednesday, announcing that CLASSE was expelled from the negotiations. Within several minutes, the other two federations walked away in solidarity.

A protest had already been called a week earlier for Wednesday night, and the government's arbitrary discussion to cut short negotiations—before, by most accounts, they had even really started—led to people understandably being angry and looking for a way to express their anger.

As Daniel Crespo, one of the organizers of last night's demonstration, told Cyberpresse:

«Évidemment on souhaite une manif énergique. Calme, c'est pas le mot...En ce moment, je crois que le sentiment qui se vit au sein des étudiant-e-s c'est la colère. Alors le calme, je ne crois pas qu'on en ait.»

"Obviously, we're hoping for an energetic demo. Calm isn't the word...Right now, I think the feeling students have is anger. So 'calm'? I don't think we have any."

That said, I have been in the middle of much angrier marches than what hit Montreal last night.

Fifteen thousand people were in the streets last night. Fifteen thousand who were fed up with a government that earlier in the day essentially spit in the face of the student strike movement, demonstrating the same condescension, arrogance and rejectionism that has characterized their approach to this movement, one of the largest social movements in the history of not just Quebec, but of Canada.

And despite all this anger, it was mostly channeled through chanting and speeches. All it took though was a few paint balloons and six broken windows before 15,000 people were announced illegal. Targeted for property destruction were banks, Loto-Quebec and a military recruitment centre: not random targets, but symbols of the government and the economic powers which are behind the push for higher tuition fees and with them higher debt. When the government refuses to negotiate in good faith for over two months, and slams the door when negotiations finally begin, is it any wonder that people would turn their frustrations on the symbols of that government and those who back them?

The response of police was unannounced and muscled. I was just a few metres from where the first percussion grenade went off, in the middle of the crowd, and I feel confident saying that the use of these weapons came before most—if anyone—in the streets knew that the march had been declared an illegal assembly. It was only after the crowd scattered that a voice was heard over the police loudspeaker announcing that the march was illegal. And looking to accounts posted on social media, I'm definitely not alone in that assessment. By the time the announcement was heard, police were already forcing their way into the crowd, separating it, with small groups of people scattering in all directions near the corner of Peel and Ste-Catherine.

From other parts of the march have come reports of police on horses charging crowds, excessive use of pepper spray and gas, batoning and tear gassing. It was only after this excessive intervention that the more aggressive tactics—a car lit on fire, more windows smashed, rocks thrown at police—took place.

Some will clearly argue that once a single window is broken, the law is broken and police have every right to intervene. But can six broken windows justify the police aggression documented on Wednesday night? And if six broken windows can make 15,000 people targetable for dispersion and arrest, then what does a tear gas cannister to the chest, or a concussion grenade to the eye, or a baton to the head or ribs, or a car ramming through a crowd equal? All are clearly more dangerous to the health and safety of individual people: police aren't taking on objects when they aggress, they are taking on flesh and blood.

When all was done—around 1am—85 people were arrested (70 in a mass arrest near St-Dominique and des Pins at the very end), accounts of police brutality were innumerable on social media, and students and supporters were vowing to fight on.

This morning, Quebec Premier Jean Charest was once again denouncing student violence as the obstacle of continued negotiation, playing out the same tired lines he and Minister Beauchamp have had on repeat for weeks. Tired lines that have, and will, do nothing to end this conflict.

Tim McSorley is an editor with The Dominion and a member of the Montreal Media Co-op.

This article was originally published by the Montreal Media Co-op.

April 25 night march in Montreal 1

April 25 night march in Montreal 2

CBC misrepresenting Quebec student strike?

Tim McSorley — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:22:52 +0000

Coverage of yesterday's demo leaves more questions than answers

MONTREAL—CBC coverage of yesterday's Quebec student protests in downtown Montreal was driven by a painfully obvious bias against the student strike.

Across Quebec, over 55,000 students are currently on strike to protest Quebec government plans to raise post-secondary tuition fees by $1,625 over the next five years.

News reports via CBC yesterday, when 15,000 students marched in Montreal, consistently failed to scrutinize violent police actions against striking students, and the station's coverage bent towards the austerity-driven logic of the Quebec government's policy to hike tuition fees.

CBC television cameras and reporters were on the ground yesterday to cover the massive student protest but failed to convey the real story, missing the full message of the student protesters and misreporting facts on police actions.

CBC News Now host Reshmi Nair's live national commentary on the student protest is important to highlight.

In this clip Nair describes live footage from Montreal via Radio Canada, broadcast as thousands of students, who had been marching throughout downtown all afternoon, converged around Montreal's Jacques Cartier Bridge, leading to a temporary blocking of bridge traffic.

Montreal riot police were on location and began forcefully clearing student protesters from the bridge and surrounding public streets. As police move on the protest, using batons and pepper spray against students carrying protest signs, Nair announces that the "police are fighting back."

Police were "fighting back" against what exactly?

"Fighting back" with pepper spray against a widely popular student protest?

Is employing batons and peppery spray against young students holding placards justified?

Certainly more balanced ways for CBC to report on unfolding events were possible.

Unfortunately this example points to larger systemic failures in CBC's coverage of the current Quebec student strike.

A lead article on CBC.ca gave the first quotes and focus in the report to a few individual students voicing support for tuition hikes and opposition to the strike. Also, this CBC post does not quote a single student participating in the strike, failing to document one voice from the thousands protesting in downtown Montreal streaming past multiple on-location CBC reporters.

Additionally, CBC coverage has widely focused on comparing Quebec tuition fees to the rest of Canada, an argument that misses the Quebec specific context to the protests.

Key historical events central to the current protests, like the major Quebec-wide student strike in 1996, which featured mass street protests that lead to an almost decade-long freeze on tuition hikes in Quebec, is largely being excluded from CBC coverage. Without clear facts on past strikes—collective student action that secured relatively lower tuition fees in Quebec—CBC is failing to provide critical context to the current story.

Students across Quebec are motivated by victories of past strikes like the protests in 1996, but also the 2005 strike when students confronted an attempt by Jean Charest’s Liberal government to slash $103 million from bursaries granted to students. Again in 2005 Quebec students successfully forced the Quebec government to back-down after months of street protests and direct actions.

CBC is also failing to address broader questions on increasingly inaccessible university education across Canada, an issue that current Quebec protests should inspire people across Canada to consider.

Tuition fees are going up coast-to-coast, rising in many cases to levels that make post-secondary education inaccessible for many, a reality illustrated in a recent study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives on university education in BC. Is this a reality that Quebec should move toward?

In a CBC live report from Montreal yesterday, reporter Dan Halton was equipped with statistics on tuition fees from across Canada, listing off the differences in tuition across the country. In doing so, he completely failed to address the central issue that Quebec students are striking to fight for: sustaining an accessible post-secondary education system.

"As it stands now Quebec has the lowest tuition fees in the country," declared Halton, finishing off the report, missing the broader point of the protest.

Implied by the CBC reporting that compares Quebec tuition fees to the rest of Canada is that Quebec students should accept proposed tuition fee hikes, given that people in the rest of Canada are paying more for post-secondary studies.

If fewer and fewer people in Quebec or Canada can access university education due to tuition hikes, increasingly a fact today, what impacts will that reality have on the collective social health?

Key to the current student strike in Quebec is a broader political struggle for accessible or even free university education as a political principal rooted in social justice.

Certainly governments are able to find billions of dollars for military spending, like the controversial billions the Conservative government is moving to spend on fighter jets, so why is the financing for more accessible or even free public universities not being explored?

CBC coverage on the Quebec student strike seems to completely side step more meaningful questions about the direction of post-secondary education in Quebec and in Canada.

Stefan Christoff is a Montreal-based musician and writer who contributes to the Media Co-op. Stefan is on twitter @spirodon

This article was originally published by the Co-op média de Montréal

Student strike Montreal 2012

Building Heroes

Tim McSorley — Mon, 31 May 2010 05:41:55 +0000

Professors protest Project Hero as military PR ploy

Montreal—Project Hero, a military-supported, private sector scholarship program with the mission to “provide undergraduate scholarships to children of fallen soldiers,” has become the target of growing criticism across Canadian campuses. Since professors at the University of Regina spoke out against the program in March, 661 people have signed a growing petition which calls on people to “stand against Project Hero.”

Over the past year, former Canadian Forces chief of staff, Retired General Rick Hillier, and Kevin Reed, the head of the Grey Horse Corporation, have spread Project Hero to 26 campuses across Canada. The program’s tag-line is “Gifting education to the children of our fallen soldiers,” but many critics see the program as both a dangerous encroachment of the military into universities and a tool to drum up support for an increasing military presence in Canadian politics and culture.

“So let's be clear about this: Project Hero is not about these children's education,” explained Martin Hebert, associate professor in the department of anthropology at the Universite Laval and member of Anthropologists for Justice and Peace (AJP), who have been active in opposing Project Hero. “The real beneficiary of all the hype that this project has created for itself are the Canadian Forces, not the soldiers' families.”

Public resistance to the program began last March, when 16 professors at the University of Regina sent an open letter to the president of their university to express dissatisfaction and opposition to the university joining Project Hero.

“A few of us didn’t want our university to participate in [Project Hero], so we put together a letter outlining our objections and asking what we would like to see happen in place of it,” Garson Hunter, associate professor of social work at the University of Regina and signatory of the letter, explained. “It has to do with the encroachment of the military into the university structure...what we objected to here was the idea of signing onto what is basically a propaganda campaign.”

The open letter called on the University of Regina to take three actions: withdraw from Project Hero, push for government funding for universal access to post-secondary education and hold a public forum on the war in Afghanistan and Canadian imperialism.

“We’re absolutely fine with our faculty and staff disagreeing with some of the things that happen at the university,” said Barb Pollock, spokesperson for the University of Regina. “A university is absolutely the place where diverse opinions and debate happen all the time, the fact that 15 or 16 of our faculty, out of about 400 disagree with something is fine.”

Despite this belief, the university is moving ahead with Project Hero, with no plans to hold the public forum called for in the letter.

While university administration has made neutrality the party line, media and local Conservative politicians—including Regina MPs Tom Lukiwski and Andrew Scheer—attempted to turn the 16 into pariahs. Scheer called for the professors to withdraw their letter and write a public apology, calling their actions “disgusting.” The signatories received messages such as, "If you can't get behind our troops, get in front," and, "You deserve to be taken to Afghanistan and strapped to a roadside IED."

Hunter considers the belligerent Conservative reaction to have been an attempt to deflect oncoming criticisms from the Afghan detainee commission, which he points out could implicate General Hillier. The retired army chief of staff also sits as the chancellor of Memorial University in Newfoundland, the first school to sign onto Project Hero.

Interview requests to both Hillier and Memorial University were not returned.

Project Hero is what Hunter calls an “unfunded scholarship,” in that it exists without any external financial backing and asks universities to waive the fees for these students. This is augmented at a number of schools by a bursary to offset the cost of books and living expenses for the children of fallen soldiers.

The University of Regina is one of the schools that offers extra funding for living expenses of these students. Barb Pollock explained that the money for this extra bursary would come from the university’s scholarship and awards fund, which funds around 3,000 awards each year. Critics are asking whether this funding could be better spent, pointing out that tuition fees are climbing across the country, making university education increasingly difficult to afford and raising the potential debt load of prospective graduates.

“With Project Hero, they are asking universities to cover [tuition and fees],” Hunter explained. “Project Hero doesn’t actually contribute ten cents...students here are facing rising tuition, for example our students are facing a five per cent tuition increase this September.”

Beyond questioning the origin of funding for the program, only a handful of students have actually been funded through Project Hero raising questions about the motivations behind the program,

“In fact, the University of Regina may never see one [such] student,” Hunter said. “It’s silly, you would have to be 15 years old right now to benefit from Project Hero...and I don’t know why you would, you would actually receive more from Veterans Affairs.”

Another major critique which has been levelled against Project Hero is the effective redundancy of the program to reach its stated goal of “gifting education.”

Act C-28, the Children of Deceased Veterans Education Assistance Act, has existed since 1985 as “a program to help children carry on with their education past high school if they have a CF parent who dies as a result of military service.” The program, funded through Veterans Affairs Canada, provides up to $6,700 per year to pay for post secondary education and the associated living expenses of the children of deceased veterans. Project Hero thus exists to fulfill a role that the Canadian government has been filling for over 20 years.

“If the only preoccupation of the Canadian Forces in this matter were to see that deceased soldiers' children get a university education, the matter could easily have been addressed by simple, private, and dignified measures, such as an increase of the soldiers' insurance policy,” said Hebert.

Politicians and the mainstream press took the 16 professors' opposition to the program as symbolizing their complete opposition to any aid going to the children of deceased soldiers. Dr. Maximillian Forte, associate professor of anthropology at Concordia University, described his colleagues' treatment as a “shocking degree of bullying” by the mainstream media, politicians, and extreme right-wing bloggers.

“Like the 16 University of Regina professors...AJP does not argue that students who have suffered the financial impact of a parent lost in war should be banned from getting scholarships,” explained Forte, who also works on the steering committee of AJP. “Instead, we argue that all students in dire financial straits should receive similar opportunities, including those who have lost a parent for whatever reason; universities should not be in the business of sanctifying one death as more heroic than another.”

Concordia was the first university in Quebec to sign onto Project Hero in 2009, followed shortly by McGill. In a press release, Judith Woodward, president of Concordia University, called the program “a fitting way to honour the memory of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice through military service.”

Project Hero is also an example of how, off-campus, the links between corporations and the military are increasing as well, says Hunter. Kevin Reed, executive director of the program, was made an honorary lieutenant colonel of the 31 Service Brigade of the Canadian Forces in December of 2008, part of an expanding program which ascribes honorary military titles to corporate leaders in exchange for their support of the military.

“We’re getting this really close connection between the military and the corporate interest who benefit from these budgets,” Hunter said. “You don’t get the Canadian public sympathetic by showing them the body parts of children killed in Afghanistan, you get support by having a Highway of Heroes and with programs like Project Hero.”

Reed is also a member of Canada Company, a registered charity founded in 2006 with the self-professed aim of providing “outreach between Canada’s Armed Forces and the corporate world.” Members of Canada Company are required to donate a minimum of $1,250 to join the ranks, receiving a pin with the group’s motto “Many Ways to Serve.” Canada Company also provides a scholarship for the children of deceased soldiers, which it has given out since 2007.

Calls to Reed were not returned.

The roll-out of Project Hero comes as Canada’s annual military budget, according to a 2008 study by the Centre for Canadian Policy Alternatives, is at its highest point since World War II—and rising. Canada has pledged to pull combat troops out of Afghanistan by next year, but as military spending increases, it poses questions about the increasing cultural presence of the Canadian Forces.

“These programs are actually embarrassing the Canadian Forces, making it look to the public that they don’t support the dependent children,” Hunter said. “We don’t call it Hero Day on November 11, we call it Remembrance Day, the name itself is jingoistic...this is a not-too-well-hidden propaganda campaign.”

Cameron Fenton is Membership Co-ordinator at The Dominion and an anthropology student at Concordia University in Montreal.

Project Hero