Dr. Ann Dale Speaks to CBU Students and Guests

"Politicians at various levels lack a sustainable development ethos," stated Dr. Ann Dale at the recent installment of the Shannon School of Business's Visiting Scholar Lecture series. Dr. Dale was the second speaker in the series; the lecture series will take place over five years and plans to draw leading business scholars from around the world.

Dr. Dale's current research focuses on sustainable community development, something she defines as a process of reconciling ecological, social and economic imperatives. If this is her operational definition of sustainable community development, to say that politicians lack a sustainable development ethos means that politicians have a low level of ecological literacy and that this has resulted in a "lack of shared meaning". Dr. Dale believes that this lack of shared meaning creates the political grid lock we are witnessing around the issues of the environment and how to solve environmental problems.

Dr. Dale told the audience that the federal and municipal levels of government can have the greatest impact. The federal government would formulate national policies, such as efficiency standards that would bring out country's laws in line with the toughest international standards in existence, while municipal governments could put in place tougher zoning regulations and by-laws.

The crowd that gathered in CBU's Royal Bank Lecture Theatre heard Dr. Dale's desire to have access to clear air, water, food and housing enshrined in our country's Charter. She does not know if it would pass but added, "It would be quite the debate, though."

Her message seemed well received by the audience a combination of people from on and off campus. The diverse audience suggested the importance of her topic and message for our island. Cape Breton has lost population, businesses, jobs and its economy has suffered as a result, these are all characteristics of what Dr. Dale (and other academics) refers to as uneven development. She began her lecture by arguing that places that are unevenly developed and in need of re-development must be careful not to over develop.

The day after her lecture, Dr. Dale was kind enough to sit down with me for a few questions. During our chat, she echoed the message from the previous night's lecture: that Cape Breton is in need of re-development and that we must be careful not to over develop and destroy the island's natural beauty, something she considered to be Cape Breton's biggest asset.

She described the development process that Cape Breton must follow as finding a "delicate balance". One that can draw in the professionals and skilled individuals an area needs to grow and, at the same time, find ways to reconcile the economic with the ecologic.

Dr. Dale was the second lecturer in the school of business's series. So far the lecture series has attracted Dr. Joel Bakan, the best-selling author and award winning documentary film maker behind "The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power", and now Dr. Ann Dale. Dr. Dale's is the Canadian Research Chair in sustainable community development, a Trudeau Fellow (2004), a Fellow of the World Academy of Art and Science, and an award winning author for her 2001 book, "At the Edge: Sustainable Development in the 21st Century."

CBU's ability to draw such academics says a lot about the institution and such an event benefits not only the university, but the larger Cape Breton community as well. When such events take place, it is a chance to bring together students, professors, business people, and community members from a wide range of backgrounds together. When such a diverse group of people share a room and their knowledge with one another, you generate debate and discussion that is rare, invaluable and a true part of what a real university education is about.

Originally published in the Cape Breton Post on Monday, March 31, 2008.

Fightin' for Freddie: CBU Students Help a Freddie Mabalot Say in Cape Breton

In September 2005, a Filipino man, Freddie Mabalot, collapsed aboard the Saga Ruby, a cruise ship docked in Sydney. Freddie applied for refugee status in 2006, but the Department of Immigration and Citizenship refused to approve his application.

The reason for his refugee application and collapse was that he was suffering from end stage renal disease, kidney failure, and he needed dialysis. The dialysis was the only thing that would keep him alive and he would not be able to afford the treatment if he had to return to the Philippines, two of his family members had died because they could not afford the treatments for their diseases.

Many people from the local community took up Freddie’s cause and one group of CBU students had a chance to work on Freddie’s behalf through a project, a community intervention. Students in the Bachelor of Arts and Community Studies program are required to perform a community intervention as a major project and one group of students was approached with Freddie’s case.

Aimee Hynes, Bhreagh Lafitte, Elise Boissonneault, Lauren MacDonald, Lorelle Burke, Tammy Besso and Vincent MacDonald were the group members and their professor, Jane Connell, told them about Freddie and his case. According to Vince MacDonald, “after a little debate, we knew this project was exactly what we would like to pursue.”

The group held several events that raised money for Freddie and awareness of his case. The group held and organized a coffee house in Sydney featuring local musicians that took in over $1,000, a presentation by Freddie’s lawyer, Lee Cohen, and two group members took Freddie to a luncheon where they met the Federal Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. At this meeting, Freddie and the two students presented Minister Finley with a package showing the support for Freddie from the local community.

Other members of the community helped to support Freddie during his ordeal. Social worker Anna Deveaux at the Cape Breton Regional Hospital who met Freddie during a session of dialysis; the Sisters of Notre Dame who were the first to take Freddie in and care for him; and people at the Cape Breton Regional Library.

According to Freddie’s lawyer, Lee Cohen, the support from the local community was one of the main reasons behind the government’s decision to let Freddie stay while his application was reviewed.

The ordeal must have been especially taxing for Mr. Mabalot because his family was in the Philippines. To make matters worse, his wife, Cynthia, and his two children, Abigail and Cyndirelle have not been able to see Freddie since he landed in hospital in Sydney in 2005.

Freddie’s case is a situation that shows Cape Bretoners at their best. People were asked to step up and many did and one man owes his life to those people.

Freddie's case also shows what can happen when students are encourages to look beyond the book and classroom during their education. As group member Vincent MacDonald wrote in an article in the Caper Times, “It is our experience that school projects and homework is something to be done before your go out on Friday or before you and your friends leave for a weekend trip. However, this is not the case for our Community Studies group from Cape Breton University.”

This case not only highlighted issues in our immigration system, it showed what a small community is capable of and what a university education can (and should) be about. Freddie’s lawyer said he had a one in a million shot at staying in Cape Breton while his application was being reviewed, if he was told to return he would have likely died. The support of our community helped this man and his family beat one in a million odds, this is a proud moment for everyone involved.

92% VOTE YES

The unofficial results are in from the CBU Students' Union's referendum to leave the CFS and 92 per cent of students voted to leave the national organization.

Total votes: 366 (10.7% of student body)

Yes votes: 337 (92%)

No votes: 23 (6%)

Spoiled: 6 (2%)

The unofficial results are in from the CBU Students’ Union referendum on its membership with the Canadian Federation of Students: 92 per cent of voters said that they wanted to leave the CFS. This reverses the decision made by CBU students in 2001 when they voted to join the CFS.

It is hard to tell what happened during the referendum in 2001, the only available documentation was a pamphlet from the side in favour of joining the CFS and a press release stating the results. Even though the students’ union is required to keep minutes from all meetings of the student representative council, the board of directors of the students’ union, there were no minutes on record from the period when the union decided join the CFS. Students from CBU and current and former union employees that were with the union in 2001 have stated that there was no side against joining the CFS during the initial referendum.

This means that when the initial referendum to join the CFS was held only one view was represented. Based on current students’ union regulations, this referendum would have been in violation of the union’s by-laws and elections act, as there must be a side in favour and opposed to the motion upon which the membership will vote.

At the beginning of the 2007-08 academic year, the CBU Students’ Union decided it wanted to ask CBU students whether they wanted to continue with their membership with the CFS. The idea was first brought to the student representative council and they voted in favour of the referendum and approved the dates and times of polling. Their notice was submitted stating the dates and times of polling and the CFS acknowledged receipt of the document. CFS by-laws also call for a petition signed by 10 per cent of the student body to be submitted. Even though this would have only required approximately 300 students, a petition with the signatures of 500 students was submitted and this was when the troubles began.

At first, the national chairperson of the CFS, Amanda Aziz, said that even though someone named Amanda signed to acknowledge the receipt of the petition, it never showed up at their national office. Then the CFS admitted that it was sent to the right building but to the wrong office and another person named Amanda signed for the package. Finally, in 2008, several months later, the CFS admitted that they received the petition, but they said they received the petition too late and, therefore, refused to acknowledge the referendum. The CFS said that they would give CBU permission to hold a referendum in the fall of 2008. However, there is no reason that the union should have waited until the fall of 2008 because there is no way to tell if the CFS would have cooperated then either.

To say that a petition was late would imply that there was a clear deadline in CFS by-laws, however, that is not the case. The only deadline mentioned in the by-laws of the CFS is the deadline for the notice of the referendum. The notice is defined as the dates and times of polling and the notice must be delivered at least six months prior to the polls opening; there is no deadline stated for the receipt of the petition.

Several students, including myself, have spent the last week and a half speaking with students about CFS and their relevance to CBU students. Unlike the referendum when we joined, there was a side against de-federating in this referendum and a side in favour of de-federating, of which I was a part.

The message resulting from the referendum was clear: CBU students want out of the CFS and if they refuse to acknowledge these results, it is nothing more than democratic meddling on the part of the CFS and another example of them ignoring the needs of CBU students.

Cost of education a factor in outmigration

Our province has more universities per capital than anywhere else in Canada; however, according to recent Statistics Canada data, only 57 per cent of university graduates stay in the province. Attempts to explain this range from the student’s original place of residence to job options to income earned. The many explanations offered ignore one central issue: student debt.

Roger Taylor, a business columnist for the Chronicle Herald, argues that the students’ original place of residence and employment options available after graduation are two of the most important factors that affect a students decision to stay in the province.

In his column, Taylor pointed to Statistics Canada data that showed 30 per cent of Nova Scotia post-secondary students come from outside of the province; more than three times the national average of eight per cent. He also states that the highest employment rates in the United States and Canada are found in Canada’s Atlantic Provinces; according to Statistics Canada, Nova Scotia’s unemployment rate was 9.1 per cent and the national average was 6.6 per cent.

Where are all of the graduates going? Alberta.

A recent column in MacLean’s On Campus stated that one in five workers in Alberta come from outside of the province and that of the people with post-secondary certifications of some kind or another – diploma or degree – more than 6,500 came from the Atlantic Provinces.

Some people do not believe that a mobile labour force is a big issue. They argue that a mobile labour force is similar to mobile capital; it flows from one place to another depending on the number of jobs and how much the available jobs pay. Not everyone holds such beliefs.

Several provinces are going further than merely disagreeing with the benefits of a mobile labour force; they are actively working to entice workers to voluntarily stay in the province in which they received their post-secondary education. Saskatchewan, Manitoba and New Brunswick all offer tuition rebates and tax incentives in an attempt to get people to stay out of the pool of workers willing to migrate.

In Nova Scotia, the government has launched a program, Opportunities Nova Scotia, which actively works to keep graduates and workers here and goes a step further, the program goes to Alberta and Ontario and attempts to convince Nova Scotians working in those provinces to return home. The province argues that the cost of homes, life style, crime rates and proximity to family members means that you can stay close to home, keep in touch with your family and make your dollar go farther.

Whether answers are coming from columnists, the C.D. Howe Institute and think tanks or the provincial government; there is one key factor that is left out: the affect that the cost of an education has on a graduates finances and future goals.

Upon graduating, the average student in Nova Scotia is approximately $25,000 in debt. This means that most university graduates leave university with a financial monkey on their back the size of a small mortgage or a decent-sized car loan. When you combine high debt rates with a high rate of interest on loans from the Canada Student Loans Program, students are faced with incredible monthly payments for years to come.

The unavoidable fact is that Nova Scotia has the highest tuition rates in Canada, on average, and that means that we will have some of the highest debt loans in the country. Starting life off in the “real world” is financially debilitating and it is no wonder many students head west to the money; expecting anything less would be unrealistic.

The 2008 federal budget /// The facts for students

With the 2008 federal budget, the Conservative government took its first steps towards setting an education agenda. The budget included approximately $500 million dollars on education related initiatives; however, the bulk of that money, $473 million, will not be put to use until 2009.

Spending initiatives in the Conservative budget include: funding to start in 2009 that will replace the Millennium Scholarship Foundation, funds to begin streamlining and modernizing the Canada Student Loans Program in 2009, and more than $25 million dollars invested into creating new scholarships for graduate students.

While many have been quick to praise the budget; student groups are more cautious, especially considering the vast majority of their education spending does not take place until the fall of 2009, after the next legally mandated federal election.

The planned extinction of the Millennium Scholarship Fund

In his budget speech, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced that the Conservative government will not be renewing the mandate of the Millennium Scholarship Foundation (MSF). Instead, the federal government will be taking the budget of the MSF, $350 million dollars, and creating the Canada Student Grant Program (CSGP).

The CSGP would receive $350 million in 2009-10, $400 million in 2010-11, $415 million in 2011-12 and $430 million in 2012-13.

According to Finance Minister Flaherty, the CSGP would target low – and middle – income Canadians, approximately 245,000 by government estimates. Low – and middle – income students would receive monthly grants of $250 and $100, respectively.

The Liberals argued that the new program was a re-branding of a former Liberal program. However, commentators have been quick to point to differences, not all good.

Zach Churchill, CASA national director, said that, “The Foundation was the only group that was doing research on access issues. Looking at Aboriginal students, low income students, and first generation students.”

“We haven’t seen any indication from the government that the federal research will be picked up,” added Churchill.

The Education Policy Institute was quick to point to a major flaw in the new programs design: the number of people eligible for support. The government estimated that 245,000 would be eligible for support through the CSGP; however, the Education Policy Institute places the number closer to 500,000, more than twice the expected amount. Such a miscalculation on the government’s part would mean that the program’s cost could more than double and would place increased stress on other areas of government spending.

Some commentators argue that the MSF operated outside of the government and the new program, the CSGP, will now be more transparent and accountable because it is a government-run program.

While many Canadian students will have access to these grants they will not be enough to fund someone’s education alone. To fill the financial void, many Canadian students will turn to the Canada Student Loans Program (CSLP). The government announced plans to invest more into the CSLP beginning in 2009 as well.

Plans to “modernize and streamline” the CSLP

Beginning in 2009 and stretching over four years, the Conservative government allocated funding of $123 million dollars for the Canada Student Loans Program (CSLP). The money will go towards the modernization and streamlining of the program, making loans more accessible to part-time students and making the program’s webpage more user-friendly.

NDP Education Critic Denise Savoie said that the investment in the CSLP was not enough and that improvements to the CSLP were vague.

“They do talk about streamlining the Canada Student Loans Program, but the devil is going to be in the details on that. There’s really no details,” said Savoie.

Savoie was not the only one concerned about the lack of detailed plans for the overhaul of the CSLP. Julian Benedict, the co-founder of Coalition for Student Loan Fairness, wrote an article for MacLean’s online that stated:

$100 million will now be earmarked for an as yet undefined “modernization” strategy. Here, voters might ask this question: after dozens of meetings with post-secondary groups, and thousands of e-mails from Canadians across the country, why is it that the feds are still unable to define exactly what is wrong with the student loan program? In any event, insiders say that this is really a slush fund aimed at those provinces which still haven’t signed on to integrated loan programs — many still have concerns about how much flexibility they will lose if such agreements are signed with the federal government.

Benedict was also quick to point out that there is no money set aside for an Ombudsman, something the United States did in 1998; no new regulations to reign in collections agencies working on behalf of the CSLP and no funds dedicated to reducing the 8.25 percent interest rate charges on student loans.

The latter of these issues seems to be Benedict’s most severe criticism of the program. He argues that as long as interest rates are as high as they are, borrowers will start life in a financial stranglehold and that borrowers are financially propping up the CSLP.

“So the next time you meet a student loan borrower paying 8.25 per cent in interest or more on their loan, thank them for subsidizing the existing loan system — they are doing it whether they can afford it or not,” wrote Benedict in his editorial for MacLean’s.

Federal Budget and Students /// Comment

With the release of the new federal budget, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government finally carved out an education agenda that has been sadly missing from its past budgets. The federal budget included money to replace the Millennium Scholarship Foundation (MSF), provide scholarships to doctoral students, increased funding for academic research and allocated funds to “modernize and streamline” the Canada Student Loans Program (CSLP).

The MSF, a Liberal brainchild, was created in 1998 with an endowment of $2.5 billion. The MSF was set to expire in 2009 and the Conservatives have introduced the Canada Student Grant Program to fill the void of the MSF. At $350 million dollars the new grant based program will dole out grants to students based on the level of income, not need: $250 per month for low-income students and $100 per month for middle-income students.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said the Conservative government expects around 240,000 students to take advantage of the new program. However, Canada’s Education Policy Institute argues that the Conservatives made a fatal error when calculate the number of participants the program will have to support. They argue that independent students will also be eligible to receive grants and since the vast majority of independent students would be classified as low-income, they will be eligible for the $250 per month grant. Because of their eligibility, the Education Policy Institute’s Canadian office places the number of eligible students at 500,000, more than twice the amount projected by the government.

This crucial error means that the program could end up costing approximately $1 billion; far more than the $350 million set aside. While, on the surface, the program sounds like a step in the right direction, the grossly underestimated number of participants could threaten the programs existence in future years or threaten other government programs if it breaks the $350 million mark.

Zach Churchill, National Chairman of CASA, added that, ““The Foundation was the only group that was doing research on access issues. Looking at Aboriginal students, low income students, and first generation students. We haven’t seen any indication from the government that the federal research will be picked up.”

Alex Usher, of the Education Policy Institute, agreed with Mr. Churchill and said that, “There will nobody speaking for access anymore in terms of research.”

The MSF and the Canada Student Grants Program worked to provide better access to post-secondary education for Canadian students. The Canada Student Grants Program also makes the same amount of money available to more students, mirroring the overall Conservative budget approach that was described by Liberal Leader Stephane Dion as a mile wide and an inch thick.

This means that there will have to be other effective mechanisms in place to help students gain access to quality post-secondary education. Where do hundreds of thousands of students turn? The Canada Student Loan Program (CSLP). The CSLP is also marked to receive $123 million to “modernize and streamline” the program.

According to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, the money will go towards making online access and management easier, to help make loans available to part time students and helping students who have trouble repaying their loans.

Streamlining is great, but the government failed to address the largest problem faced by students because of the CSLP, high interest rates. Student loan borrows will continue to prop up the problem plagued program with the money the federal government collects in interest rates. Instead of fixing the core problem of the program, the Conservative government merely applied a $123 million Band-Aid.

The programs and spending initiatives are plentiful and between two of the initiatives they totaled more than $450 million. However, the amount does not guarantee that they were the most effective fixes for the problems that face students. For example, no longer will needs based research be conducted and the core problems of the CSLP have yet to be corrected. Until these topics are given the attention they deserve, the real issues surrounding access to education will not be understood and student borrowers will continue to prop up a loan program regardless of whether they can afford to do so.