Federal government announces it will approve fewer international students, in wake of the housing crisis and universities taking financial advantage of international students
On Jan. 22, Marc Miller, minister of immigration, refugees and citizenship, announced that smaller cap on the number of international student permits to be approved will come into effect this year.
In an online news release on Jan. 22, the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada stated that about 360,000 new international study permits will be approved in 2024, which is a 35 per cent reduction from last year. The IRCC also stated that while international students are an integral part of Canadian society and the economy, they are currently being taken advantage of by some educational institutions aiming to earn more revenue from the higher tuition international students pay.
“Some institutions have significantly increased their intakes to drive revenues, and more students have been arriving in Canada without the proper support they need to succeed,” stated the IRCC online news release.
Some institutions have significantly increased their intakes to drive revenues, and more students have been arriving in Canada without the proper support they need to succeed.
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, Jan. 22 online news release
The news release also cited that increasingly high numbers of admitted international students are putting pressure on housing services.
This new international student cap coincides with Miller’s December 2023 announcement that access to funds of at least $20,635 are needed for international students to study in Canada. This is double the previous requirement and this amount is in addition to the cost of student’s tuition and travel expenses.
Miller stated that this decision aims to protect international students that cannot afford to live in Canada from academic institutions aiming to take advantage of them.
These new requirements were also justified by Miller in light of the current housing shortage, the effects of which are increasing in severity for both international and domestic students as enrolment for both groups continues to rise.
"Through the decisive measures announced today, we are striking the right balance for Canada and ensuring the integrity of our immigration system while setting students up for the success they hope for," stated Miller, in the Jan. 22 online news release.
Through the decisive measures announced today, we are striking the right balance for Canada and ensuring the integrity of our immigration system while setting students up for the success they hope for.
Marc Miller, minister of immigration, refugees and citizenship, in Jan. 22 online news release
Under the new federal limit, provincial limits have been established according to each's population. As a result, provinces with the greatest numbers of universities and hence international students will likely see the greatest decrease in approved permits.
The cap does not apply to graduate students, nor to elementary and high school students. The cap also does not apply to students that already hold a study permit, so current international students are not at risk of having their ability to study in Canada revoked.
This cap will remain in effect for two years and the number of new international students to be approved in 2025 will be decided at the end of this year.
This is an ongoing story.
By Sarun Balaranjan, Contributor
Note: Sarun Balaranjan is a member of the Board of Directors for OPIRG.
Before I begin, I must acknowledge my conflict of interest as a member of the Board of Directors for OPIRG. This year has been troubling for OPIRG in many respects. The Student Choice Initiative forced us to terminate all of our staff. The new Board of Directors had almost no prior experience with OPIRG. Oh, and the McMaster Students Union decided to threaten our very existence.
OPIRG McMaster is a unique group on campus in that it is not a service provided by the MSU, but the MSU plays a role in the process of funnelling our annual budget from students. Because we are autonomous from the MSU, we are able to provide a platform for students who want to engage in activism that the MSU may not condone, potentially for bureaucratic reasons. We are currently supporting new groups like Divest McMaster, a student-run initiative aiming to push McMaster administration to sell the investments tied up in the extraction of fossil fuels through McMaster University’s endowment fund. A group like Divest McMaster would likely have no clear place in advocacy through the MSU, since intuitively, the MSU would protect the interests of the university. By putting OPIRG McMaster to referendum and potentially defunding this organization, the MSU is limiting the extent of student activism.
On Nov. 29, 2019, the Student Representative Assembly proposed sending OPIRG to referendum. A major reason was that we were spending too much money on staffing and administration. Granted, this was fair given the preliminary budget received by the finance committee showed that roughly 87 per cent of our funds were allocated towards staffing and administrative costs. However, upon receiving our opt-out rates, we updated our budget to reflect that only a reasonable 30 per cent of our costs would be allocated towards staffing. Despite this change, the MSU continued to cite this 87 per cent figure in proceeding OPIRG referendum documents.
On Feb. 9, The board of directors were brought in a second time to delegate on the topic of being sent to referendum on the grounds of bylaw infractions. By this time, the previously cited staffing cost issues were pushed into the background in favour of bylaw infractions. At this point, it was clear that the MSU had an agenda to push and that moving goalposts was well within their capacity. One of the broken bylaws cited by the MSU was a late budget submission. Yes, we were four days late in submitting our budget, but we had only received the opt-out numbers near the end of September with an Oct. 15 due date. In addition, our treasurer, the primary point of contact with the MSU, had been taken out of commission with serious personal issues and we were still negotiating with our Union regarding budgeting limitations. Some leniency would have been appreciated in receiving our updated budget, but we admit that there were communication issues due to these external circumstances.
In terms of the other infractions, the associate vice-president (Finance) and their committee ruled, without any consultation with the SRA, that we broke Bylaw 5, article 3.1.2 on financial transparency. Some of these bylaws are fairly vague in phrasing and describe only general tenets that must be followed. I would like to remind you that, originally, the vote to send us to referendum passed by only two votes. On Feb. 23, we returned to delegate to the SRA in the hopes of reconsidering the motion to send OPIRG to referendum on Feb. 9. The motion to reconsider the original referendum decision had seven SRA members in favour, nine members opposed, and the final six members abstained. The ambiguity and uncertainty in the room was palpable each time. It seems inherently unjust that this decision on a bylaw violation was determined by a small subset of the elected body that is supposed to prioritize student interests.
Democracy is a process. The continual reforming, reshaping and restructuring of practices are based on a common understanding of what works and what fails society. A major issue ingrained in democracy is that democratic leaders need flashy campaigns for upward mobility. Sure, whoever spearheads this movement gets to say on their resume that they managed to create “tangible corrective action” against a “financially opaque group.” Or, maybe on their next election platform, they get to flex themselves as proponents of financial transparency. Again, maybe the SRA should provide their own input as to what constitutes a bylaw violation, rather than leave it in the hands of a small, potentially biased group to act as arbiters.
We as a board are deeply aware of the importance of student choice. This is why we advertise students’ choices so that students can opt out of our fees should they feel that they want to. A referendum sounds like the MSU is putting power back into the hands of the students, but, in reality, the opportunity is being provided for the majority of McMaster students to take a platform of free speech and social justice away from a marginalized minority. Even if the majority of students do not believe in the value of OPIRG, the organization remains an important outlet of free speech and support for alienated students who want to engage in activism.
The punishment that has been carried out doesn’t quite reflect the crime.
The Student Choice Initiative has placed many students in a difficult position. How much choice is there when students are forced to compromise supporting student services so that they can save money to mitigate the consequences of OSAP funding cuts and increased financial stress, or vice versa?
The answer is that there isn’t much choice, and unfortunately, it’s still one that students across Ontario will have to make.
The Silhouette has been deemed a non-essential service under the Ontario Government's Student Choice Initiative, putting our funding in jeopardy. As McMaster’s independent student newspaper, we have made a commitment to providing a platform for student voice, expression, criticism and celebration for 90 years.
As students make decisions about which fees to opt-out of, we ask that our McMaster community take into consideration the effects their choices will have on services.
Ontario government releases Student Choice Initiative guidelines
Vital services, campus activities at risk as Mac students choose what fees to pay | CBC News
The fate of many of McMaster University's clubs hangs in the balance over the next week as students decide whether to fund the clubs and other student activities. Student leaders say the process endangers important student services and could fundamentally change the nature of student life. From Sept.
Hamilton city council recently declared a climate emergency and pledged to substantially reduce the city’s greenhouse gas emissions. While the declaration carries symbolic weight, the ambitious emission reduction targets can only be met if city council commits significant resources towards climate change measures. Climate activists and city councilors weigh in on what this will mean for the city.
On March 27, Hamilton city council finalized the decision to declare a climate emergency in the city of Hamilton.
The decision comes as a result of a report from the United Nations intergovernmental panel on climate change released in October 2018. The report found that, unless humanity limits global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius, there will be a risk of long lasting and irreversible changes that will result in major loss of life.
The report found that limiting global warming to 1.5°C would mean reducing carbon dioxide emissions to 45 per cent of 2010 levels by 2030, and reaching net zero emissions by 2050.
“Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society,” stated the report.
Hamilton city council has joined a number other Canadian cities, including Kingston, Vancouver and Halifax, who have pledged to reduce emissions to meet these targets.
The declaration instructs the city manager to put together a multi departmental task force and present an emission reduction plan within 120 days.
According to the 2018 vital signs report released by the Hamilton community foundation, Hamilton has double the per capita GHG emissions compared to other greater Toronto and Hamilton area cities.
The 2015 community action plan set the goals of reducing GHG emissions by 20 per cent of 2006 levels by 2020, 50 per cent by 2030 and 80 per cent by 2050. The new goals, however, are more ambitious.
By declaring a climate emergency, the city aims to communicate the degree of risk to the public and demonstrate that the city is taking the issues seriously. During the board of health meeting, environment Hamilton climate campaign coordinator Ian Borsuk noted that it is important to show the public that the city understands the severity of the issue.
Additionally, a major goal of the declaration is to coordinate municipal action to develop a centralized strategy for dealing with climate change. This will take the form of a multi departmental task force across city departments.
“This isn’t something that can be left as a side project, this isn’t something that can be left as another file, this is something that needs to be part of what the city does every single day,” stated Borsuk during the presentation.
At the March 18 board of health meeting, presenters from environment Hamilton made suggestions to the city about ways to reduce emission levels by the target dates, noting that the city has already taken significant measures to reduce GHG emissions, but can do more.
One suggestion was to expand and improve public transit. Currently, Hamilton street rail ridership falls short of projections by about 10 per cent. The city is currently working towards a 10 year plan to improve HSR service, which includes improving service and adding capacity.
After industry, transportation is the largest emitter of greenhouse gas in Hamilton. According to Hamilton 350 coordinator Don McLean, transportation is one of the areas that the city can make the biggest difference. By extending bus service and making transit more affordable, McLean sees potential for large increases in ridership.
McLean also notes that Hamilton charges some of the lowest parking fees in Canada. The city owns some parking facilities, and has the ability to tax parking lots separately in order to drive pricing. In order to incentivize people to take public transit, McLean says, the parking rate has to be considerably higher than bus fare.
“Why switch to a bus if I can park downtown all day for $4?" he asked.
Another suggestion that environment Hamilton made to the board of health was to develop a “green standard” for new public and private buildings. By mandating energy use limits, the city can make a substantial difference in emissions.
Environment Hamilton executive director Lynda Lukasik also noted during the presentation that enhancing green infrastructure would help the city meet its emission targets. This includes measures such as bio soils, better managed storm water, and planting an urban forest.
Urban canopy currently sits at about 18 per cent, which is 12 per cent below the official target. Expanding the urban forest would help draw down emissions, reduce stormwater flows, and mediate heat effects.
In order to meet these goals, multiple environmental organizations across Hamilton have suggested that the city commits to applying a climate lens to all of its decisions. Similarly to the equity, diversity and inclusion lens equity, diversity and inclusion lens announced in March, the climate lens would evaluate all city actions in terms of their climate impact.
One of the main challenges for meeting the emission reduction targets is resource availability. During the board of health meeting, ward 3 councilor Nrinder Nann pointed out that achieving the commitments would likely involve retrofitting almost every building across Hamilton and switching to electric or hydrogen fuel cells for vehicles. Implementing these measures would require substantial investments of time and money.
Currently, the community climate change action plan receives provincial funding from the proceeds of the cap and trade program. However, the province scrapped the cap and trade program in October 2018 and has pulled funding from other environmental initiatives. Therefore funding for the emissions reduction plan would likely have to come from other sources.
Ward 4 councilor Sam Merulla noted that the challenge will become clear once staff reports the budget to city council within 120 days. If people hear that their taxes will increase, they may be resistant to implementing the plan.
However, Nann pointed out that even though dealing with climate change requires immediate spending, it will generate revenue in the long term. Additionally, inaction will incur high remedial costs.
Another challenge for meeting the emission reduction targets is industry. Industry accounts for 83 per cent of Hamilton's emissions, a large percentage of which comes from steel mills. However, steel mills are under provincial and federal jurisdiction, meaning that the city does not have direct control over their emissions.
Despite this, notes McLean, the city can work towards offsetting emissions through agricultural practices and reforestation.
Even if the city manages to reach the emission reduction targets in time, McLean worries that it will be too little, too late.
Climate change is a cumulative problem, meaning that all GHGs currently in the atmosphere will continue to contribute to warming, even if emissions stop.
“The kinds of things that are being talked about now are the kinds of things that should have been very actively implemented 30 years ago,” he stated. “ If you've got a cumulative problem then setting any date in the future as to when we should stop is too late.”
In order to make the climate change emergency more than a symbolic gesture, the city will have to dedicate significant resources and implement regular checkpoints to reduce emissions. The true weight of this declaration will become clear once the task force presents the emission reduction plan to city council. To achieve net zero emissions by 2050, the city has to implement unprecedented changes across all aspects of decision-making.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By: Saba Manzoor
The federal government has awarded $3.3 million in grants to 72 social sciences and humanities researchers at McMaster.
These grants are a part of the federal government’s social sciences and humanities research council’s “Insight Development Grant” program.
McMaster was one of nearly 80 post-secondary institutions across the country to receive part of the $141 million overall grant funding provided by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
This announcement comes a few months after McMaster maintained its rank as Canada’s most research-intensive university on the list of Canada’s top 50 research universities.
Funding through government programs, such as the SSHRC-IDG, continues to play a significant role in establishing the university’s rank on the list.
In addition to being lauded for the quality of their research, McMaster’s humanities and social science researchers have also been recognized for the communicability of their research.
In particular, they were the recipients of the 2017 SSHRC award of excellence for communications, which recognized the accessibility of McMaster research for non-expert audiences.
One of this year’s research grant recipients is Jeffrey Denis, an associate professor in the department of sociology.
Denis’ funds are being put towards a collaborative project with Reconciliation Kenora, a non-profit organization comprised of Indigenous and non-Indigenous residents in Northwestern Ontario.
The goal of Denis’ project is to improve local relationships and better understand the reconciliation efforts that prevail in this part of the province.
“Our plan is to conduct a series of video-recorded sharing circles with Anishinaabe, Metis and settler residents about what reconciliation means, the barriers and enablers to achieving it and how to engage more people in the process,” said Denis.
Brent McKnight, an assistant professor with the DeGroote School of Business, is another grant recipient this year.
Through this funding, McKnight will be evaluating how external considerations, such as environmental, social and governance factors, contribute to financial investments.
Specifically, McKnight will be examining how these factors play into a retail market investment decisions.
“There are few sources of funding for social science research and this multi-year grant is critical,” said McKnight.
Mark Norman, another grant recipient, is a postdoctoral fellow in the department of health, aging and society at McMaster.
With the funding, Norman will be investigating the organization and social meanings of sport and physical recreation in Ontario youth detention centres.
According to Norman, despite their popularity in youth correctional facilities, evidence suggests that implementing sports programs for at-risk youth produces mixed outcomes.
Norman’s project aims to reconcile the knowledge gap and explore why these programs are yielding these results.
“It is crucial that Canadian governments and post-secondary institutions invest in social sciences and humanities research, particularly projects that investigate pressing social problems or provide insight on how to ameliorate social injustices in our society,” explains Norman.
Other research projects funded through the grant cover a wide range of topics, including the history of smallpox and the effects of taxation on trade.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
Hamilton city council has committed to taking an equity and inclusion lens to municipal decisions going forward.
Two weeks ago, Mayor Fred Eisenberger brought a motion to city council to implement a new equity, diversity and inclusion lens into city policies.
The motion passed unanimously and calls for a report to be brought forward on how to introduce an EDI lens to all city initiatives.
Attached to the motion was a draft version of an equity, diversity and inclusion handbook.
The motion also includes an allocation of $5,000 for city council to hold an EDI summit.
The new lens builds on the recommendations highlighted in Hamilton’s equity and inclusion policy implemented in 2010.
Ward 1 councillor Maureen Wilson said an EDI lens will require the city to be more specific and concrete when it incorporates equity and inclusion into different policies.
According to Wilson, it is not about quotas and targets, but about a shift in decision-making that will require city council to include the perspectives of all communities.
The EDI lens will first be applied to issues concerning housing and homelessness.
However, Wilson sees potential for it to affect how the city envisions issues like transit, helping to consider the ways that different communities, like women or bikers, get around in Hamilton.
Eisenberger’s motion followed debate at city councillor over the city manager search committee and interview process, which some individuals, including Wilson and Ward 3 councillor Nrinder Nann, criticized for not taking a diverse and inclusive approach.
Denise Christopherson, the CEO of the YWCA Hamilton and chair of the status of women committee, has called for city council to adopt an EDI framework for years.
Christopherson said she is encouraged by the support for the motion at city council and appreciative of the efforts of Wilson and Nann in pushing this forward.
“It’s been in the works for a long time,” Christopherson said. “To develop a framework, this is going to be a multi-year work project that hopefully gets ingrained in everything they do at city hall. So when they're putting forward a proposal, it’s about, have they gone through the lens of inclusion? Who have they consulted with?”
The YWCA Hamilton currently runs multiple programs providing housing for non-binary people and women without places to stay.
Christopherson is hopeful that the new lens will result in more funding for programs like these.
“I like to say that the city should have a hand in all marginalized communities,” Christopherson said. “Hopefully we see more investment in those necessary programs.”
Community organizer Sophie Geffros is also optimistic about the new lens and what it could mean for current city council issues.
“I’m cautiously excited about it, because it signals to me that the city is at least beginning to acknowledge that designing a city around the needs of straight, white, middle class, able bodied men is not just ineffective but can be actively harmful for its marginalized citizens,” Geffros said.
As the city still awaits a report on how the lens will be implemented, activists and supporters of the motion are hopeful about the many policy areas a city-wide EDI framework could effect change in.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By: Rosemarie O’Shea
For many users, the birth control pill’s side effects pose problems beyond spotting and migraines. The pill’s effects on the mental health of women are now being more widely discussed than ever. More women are opening up about their birth control experiences and how it has taken a toll on their mental wellbeing.
A quick YouTube search results in various videos titled along the lines of “Why I quit the pill”, where one video is even titled and thoroughly capitalized “THE PILL IS MAKING ME CRAZY. I QUIT”. Despite all this discussion in the social sphere, the medical research in comparison appears to be lacking.
Upon being made available to Canadians since 1960, the pill quickly became the country’s most popular form of reversible contraception. Now, more than 100 million women worldwide use the oral contraceptive pill to prevent pregnancy or control their menstruation.
Birth control pills contain varying levels of the hormones estrogen and progestin, the synthetic version of progesterone, a natural sex hormone. They prevent the release of the egg to stop ovulation from occurring, whilst also thickening the cervical mucus so that sperm cells are unable to enter the fallopian tubes. Both tactics minimize the chances of the egg meets sperm fertilization fairy tale. Provided it is taken correctly, the pill’s efficiency rate is stated to be 99 per cent effective.
Of course, almost every medication comes with its own set of side effects. The most commonly reported repercussions of the pill include intermenstrual spotting, nausea, breast tenderness and migraines. Slotted amongst these physical reactions, the ever-ominous sounding ‘mood changes’ is also listed.
These ‘mood changes’ are reflected in the most common reason for women to stop taking or change the pill they are using – its ramifications on their mental health.
In the 1970s, women protested for more information to be made available about the side effects of the pill as there were increasing reports of women suffering from heart conditions in connection to it. Eventually, the Food and Drug Administration required manufacturers to include inserts, within its packaging, listing the pill’s side effects and risks.
The FDA also required that the pill’s formula contain a significantly less amount of estrogen which has resulted in a lower risk of cardiovascular events and emergence of cancers. However, the connection between usage and increased risk of experiencing mental health issues weren’t legitimately addressed.
Recent studies have determined a link between the changes in hormone levels and the extent of anxiety and depression prevalent such as in premenstrual syndrome. Furthermore, the progesterone hormone has been shown to induce depression while its synthetic version, progestin, has been discovered to result in the decreased production of serotonin which is the hormone responsible for feelings of wellbeing.
Finding an ethical method of proving the cause and effect relationship between the pill and deteriorating mental health has stunted research in the field as the distribution of placebo pills to study subjects would result in unwanted pregnancies. Though, a study involving celibate subjects would face no ethical deliberation.
The issue remains that the advancement of medical technology concerning all categories that the pill’s side effect falls into: mental health, contraceptive technology and women’s health. Funding for such research is simply inefficient in times where it is most needed and expected by many.
Moreover, there is a consistency in the medical community’s reluctance to connect the pill with mental health issues, despite the large quantity of claims that have supported the correlation. Such reluctance possibly stems from the pill’s profit and value as a commodity.
It also seems to be the most accessible form of contraception to many and, so, slandering its brand so to speak may appear as a brash move.
With so many women experiencing heightened mental health issues in connection to their usage of the pill, this is an issue that needs addressing within the medical community. While the government are pushing more funding into mental health awareness, this problem continues to grow without being adequately addressed by research.
It’s time to shift the focus from dealing with the issues at hand after they conspire to looking at preventative measures that will protect users. The pill and its implications need to be more well researched and users must be informed. It’s time for the medical community to listen to women’s experiences, as neglecting their health and wellbeing is not an option.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By: Jacqueline McNeill
CW: Mentions of sexual assault
It’s no secret that McMaster University’s “Brighter World” campaign has not been well-received by students, as demonstrated by recent actions by student protestors who replaced the slogan with “Whiter World” on a protest banner and distributed “Whiter World” posters in Dec. 2018.
Besides encouraging racist and ableist ideologies of what a “good”, “smart” or “bright” student is, the Brighter World campaign clashes with the problematic histories of the wealthy, white men that McMaster happily accepts money from; namely from Ron Joyce and Michael DeGroote.
With the recent passing of Joyce, McMaster released a statement claiming that he was a “generous philanthropist, a dedicated volunteer and a great friend to McMaster.”
"He was enthusiastic and committed to making a difference in so many ways, and he will be greatly missed," says McMaster president @PatrickDeane37. Ron Joyce was a generous philanthropist and a dedicated volunteer. We are saddened by his loss. | https://t.co/o73r3l3UKj
— McMaster University (@McMasterU) February 1, 2019
This statement, as well as every narrative McMaster has put forward about Joyce, overlooks the sexual assault allegations against the billionaire in addition to numerous other lawsuits against him. The allegations of these suits include intentional infliction of mental suffering, cheating Lori Horton out of her share of the Tim Horton’s franchise, and more.
Joyce attempted to have the sexual assault suit against him dropped, but the Appeal Court ruled in 2017 that the allegations warranted a trial. At this trial, Joyce maintained that he gave the victim $50,000 as “a gesture of friendship” rather than money to bribe her away. He denied that any assault had occurred, despite the $50,000 in perceived hush money.
The fact that McMaster never cut ties or removed Joyce’s name from our school after these allegations is telling for students.
Amidst the current discussion of how McMaster and the McMaster Students Union treat sexual assault cases and survivors, McMaster’s friendship with Joyce reveals where their priorities lie.
As long as Joyce’s sexual assault trial is left unacknowledged, McMaster continues to send the message that they value capital over the safety and mental health of students and survivors.
McMaster has also explicitly supported Michael DeGroote after his murky financial escapades came to light.
DeGroote, whose name is on our business and medical schools, invested in a casino business venture that initially appeared to be just that. However, he continued to invest even when it was evident that there was organized crime involvement in the venture.
Although it could be argued that DeGroote was unaware of this — however ignorant he’d have to be for this to be the case — he was recorded promising to send $150,000 “no strings attached” to a man who had offered to create evidence to prove that the brothers who started the casino venture had defrauded DeGroote.
“There’s ways of buying evidence, but it’s got to be done right,” DeGroote said in the recording.
Despite the overwhelming evidence generated from a year-long investigation by the CBC and the Globe and Mail, McMaster reaffirmed to CBC that DeGroote is a “thoughtful, visionary, and very generous man,” while refusing to address if DeGroote’s involvement with mafia activity would change the way they accept money from him in the future.
The names of Ron Joyce and Michael DeGroote on our campus are a constant reminder of how little McMaster values its students, and that Mac administration will let anything slide if the donation is big enough. Even if McMaster is unlikely to alter the names of these buildings and schools, it is crucial for students to be aware of where funding for them came from, and the therefore hypocritical nature of McMaster’s Brighter World.
If McMaster truly aims to create a Brighter World which campaigns for the “health and well-being of all”, they can start by scrubbing off these stains on our campus.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
On Jan. 11, McMaster Daily News published an article by Catherine Munn, an associate clinical professor from McMaster University’s psychiatry and behavioural neurosciences and lead psychiatrist at the McMaster Student Wellness Centre.
Titled ‘Why are so many students struggling with mental health?’, the article discusses the factors that may lead to why students are struggling with mental health and the support systems in place, both on and off-campus, for those who find themselves struggling. It also demonstrates that students are in severe need for better mental health support on campus.
From inadequate funding for Student Accessibility Services, severely long wait times to see a counsellor and over 23,000 students accessing support from SWELL, it’s interesting to see that candidates in the McMaster Student Union presidential election aren’t prioritizing mental health in their campaigns.
Out of the four candidates in this year’s race, only three of them have a single platform point related to mental health support on campus. Out of these three, only one platform is feasible in theory, while still remaining financially unclear.
Generally, once these platform points are simmered down, they don’t amount to anything more than a relatively ambitious and opportunistic points to gain your vote. Each platform that has a talking point about mental health support has no plan that is feasible or realistical to implement structures that support students on and off-campus.
Sure, there is only so much that can be done within a year’s term. But within a year’s term, the MSU president’s role is to advocate on behalf of students and to bring your concerns to higher levels of governments and to university administration.
We can turn these talking points into feasible opportunities to support those who are struggling on campus by prioritizing their needs over self-indulgent platforms from our presidential candidates.
So let’s be clear, we can do a whole lot better for the many students who are struggling with mental health.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
Disclaimer: This piece was written prior to the changes made on Jan. 17 by the Ford provincial government regarding tuition for postsecondary education. Changes to the Ontario Student Assistance Program include increasing the length of time students must have graduated high school to qualify as an independent student from four to six years, removal of the grace period for repayment of loans upon graduation, and removal of many grants for lower-income students. Read the provincial government's statement here: https://news.ontario.ca/maesd/en/2019/01/affordability-of-postsecondary-education-in-ontario.html
The Ontario Student Assistance Program, a financial aid program offered through the provincial government, has helped many Ontario students get through university. OSAP offers funding through grants and student loans, and can be used to help offset the cost of tuition and school-related expenses.
Almost all Ontario residents may apply for OSAP but the amount of aid offered to each individual is dependent on the individual’s education expenses, course load, and personal financial situation. This last factor essentially boils down to your family’s income. If your family makes enough money deemed by the government to sufficiently cover educational expenses, then this renders you ineligible to collect OSAP.
While this appears to favour students from low-income households, as it should, it neglects the possibility of students from high-income households where parents do not or cannot pay for tuition. There are many reasons why this occurs ranging from the parents’ genuine inability to allocate funds for their children’s education to refusing on the grounds of principle. Though these students truly demonstrate financial need, their concerns often go unrecognized.
As these students are not able to collect OSAP, they typically have to work several part-time jobs to pay for tuition, or try their luck at applying for private loans that do not carry the benefits of student loans like interest relief during schooling and grace periods after graduation.
As of now, the only way to receive OSAP if you are from a high-income family is to be considered an independent student with an income below what the government deems as excessive or to declare a family breakdown. To be considered an independent student, one must meet several criteria. For example, both your parents must be deceased, you’ve worked full-time for at least 24 months in a row, or you’ve been out of high school for four or more years.
These provisions show the assumption of the provincial government that parents will support their children for four years of postsecondary education. This often false assumption also has no rational grounds; why the decision for a seemingly arbitrary four years? What occurs only after four years from high school that makes someone financially independent?
The alternative, to declare a family breakdown, is also insufficient. To declare a family breakdown renders you an independent student but you must show proof of estrangement from your parents “due to documented mental, physical, sexual, and/or emotional abuse or drug or alcohol addiction in your family”. This provision is too narrowed and does not reflect the many other reasons that parents may be unwilling or unable to support their children’s postsecondary education expenses. Your parents could very well be supporting you, just not financially.
Rather than requiring students to jump through hoops to receive aid, there should be an honour system for students applying for OSAP. If students claim that they are financially independent from their parents, they should be believed at face-value. Perhaps the stipulation can be a restriction for these applicants to receive student loans only, so that grants can be reserved for students from lower-income families.
There will undoubtedly be individuals that misuse such an honour system. But is the potential for misuse strong enough cause to warrant not supporting individuals who could legitimately benefit from such an option? That’s subject to debate.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
