By Touka Shamkhi, Contributor
It’s 5:30 a.m. and I allow myself to enjoy a few moments of pre-dawn peace before I get up to confront the day ahead of me. As I scramble to get ready, I take a mental note of my plans for the day: placement, work and then tutorial prep. Why work, you may ask? Well, although midwifery students receive reimbursements from the program, it takes a long time to process and it hardly covers the amount that needs to be spent on paying for a car (a program requirement), gas, car maintenance, travel and relocation fees, hospital/placement-related parking and course materials.
Prior to entry, the midwifery education program cautions us that we will not be able to work for the majority of our time in this four-year program due to its intensive nature. But what about those of us who do not have a choice? I can’t help but think about how many people don’t make it through the gates because of these barriers. And for those of us who were able to claw our way through the gates, we have to fight everyday to stay here because financial planning can only get you so far when your institution is not set up to support you.
“How’s your break year going?” a well-intentioned but entirely out of touch older woman asks me. The third year of the midwifery education program is considered to be a “break” year of more regular and predictable hours, and I imagine it would be a break year for those who have the luxury of a financial safety net. As a third year student, I am lucky to even be able to entertain the thought of working, but when I make it to my fourth year, the clinical hours and on-call schedule will make it virtually impossible to work outside of the program and cover the cost of living.
As students in clinical placements, we are a part of the healthcare team. We are simultaneously learners and team members, which is a very special and valuable role to have, but it can be stressful when we do not have another source of income. Financial compensation of some sort would relieve this stress and allow us to focus on our learning and growth as budding healthcare providers. This is especially important for senior (fourth year) midwifery students, who have much more responsibility compared to midwifery students in previous levels. Senior midwifery students eventually start to take on the role of backup midwives under supervision. In simplified terms, when senior students get called up as backup midwives instead of registered midwives they are, in most circumstances, functionally taking on the role of a midwife. Similar to medical residents that relieve some of the workload of their unit, senior midwifery students lessen the workload of other midwives at the clinic. Despite the added responsibility and workload that senior midwifery students have, they do not get paid. On the other hand, first year medical residents, for example, rightfully get paid approximately $60,000 in Ontario to offset living costs, as they do not have time to work outside of school. Unlike first year medical residents, senior midwifery students do not receive income related to the work they do while on placement. This forces senior midwifery students to rely on savings, loans and family support, because the intensity of fourth year and the unpredictable hours of midwives’ on-call schedule makes it impossible to work outside of placement. This calls into question which students this institution is setting up for success — it isn’t the students who rely on inadequate funding from OSAP and it isn’t students without a financial safety net.
Midwifery students’ financial precarity was exacerbated in 2017 when the only professional line of credit offered by a major Canadian bank, the Royal Bank of Canada, no longer allowed midwifery students to apply for a line of credit, whereas students from other healthcare disciplines were offered higher lending limits without cosigners. This decision by RBC launched a student-led campaign to address the financially precarious situation midwifery students have to navigate. The Fair Financing for Midwifery Students campaign emphasizes that “this precarity disproportionately affects students who already face barriers to higher education including people of colour, Indigenous students, single parents and those from rural areas.”
Midwifery as a profession is undervalued within the healthcare system and by our provincial government. The Association of Ontario Midwives filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal alleging that the Ontario Ministry of Health discriminated against midwives on the basis of gender. In September 2018, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ruled in favour of the Association of Ontario Midwives and the midwifery association is now putting pressure on the provincial government to honour that ruling and close the pay gap. It isn’t difficult, then, to understand that midwifery students are also undervalued and unsupported. The financial barriers that midwifery students experience is more than just an oversight. Rather, it is symptomatic of an unaccommodating institution and a system that doesn’t value the work of gendered helping professionals.
I am tired. And for those of us who are de-centered within dominant, white upper-middle class midwifery culture, I am exhausted. For my friends at the margins of the margins, who are undervalued and unsupported from outside and within this program and profession, I share your exhaustion.
I remember going to Guelph University to see Angela Davis speak in the winter of 2019, an evening which I will always cherish. Of the many things that stuck with me from that evening was Angela Davis’ critique of Hillary Clinton-esque feminism that is invested in “breaking the glass ceiling” which entirely neglects those under which the ground is threatening to collapse. And on that note, best of luck to those who are at the top and whose only barrier is the glass ceiling, but I am interested in those of us who have to fight to stay above ground.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
Please note: This is a developing story and this article will be updated as more information arises.
McMaster is requiring students to move out of residence by this Saturday at 4 p.m., as the COVID-19 pandemic spreads and calls for social distancing increase across the province.
In a release sent out the morning of March 17, McMaster announced immediate changes to support social distancing within residences. Until the move-out deadline, guests will not be permitted in residences, and common rooms and game rooms will be closed.
In order to appropriately check-out, students must complete a mandatory online residence status update form through the McMaster Housing Portal. The form asks students to select a move-out time between Tuesday, March 17 and Saturday March 21 at 4 p.m.
Before this release, the university suspended all in-person classes and exams on Friday, March 13. Many classes are being moved online, and professors are required to contact students by Wednesday to let them know how their courses will proceed for the remainder of the term.
McMaster’s 12 on-campus residences house almost 3,600 students. It remains to be seen how the university will support students in their transition from residence.
A room in residence costs between $5,800 and $9,000 for a year. The residence contract requires students to move out of residence the day after their last exam, which can be anywhere from April 13 to April 29.
In the March 17 release, McMaster committed to providing “financial consideration for your shortened stay in residence” to students who check out of residence on or before the designated move-out deadline. It is not yet clear what financial consideration entails. According to the frequently asked questions column on the Residence COVID-19 Updates page, the University does not currently have any information regarding refunds for meal, residence, and parking fees. Food plan budgets will, however, carry over into next year. Information is expected to be updated soon.
The university may make exceptions for students who are unable to return home due to travel restrictions, however, students need to submit an application through the McMaster Housing Portal in order to be eligible to remain in residence. According to the release, the only students eligible to remain in residence are international students and out-of-province students who need extra time to move out.
The statement did not make note of students who face additional barriers, which may prevent them from being able to complete the remainder of their academic terms, should they be forced to move out from residence.
Hi Calvin -- students in those circumstances would need to speak with Housing about their specific situation.
— McMaster University (@McMasterU) March 17, 2020
Students may be unable to return to their family homes due to unsafe living situations or unsupportive families. Additionally, students may not have access to wifi and other resources necessary to complete their course work. As the provincial government requires all public libraries in Ontario close under a declaration of emergency, it remains to be seen how the university will support students without access to the resources necessary to engage in online courses.
Update: March 20, 2020: While international students and out-of-province students are pre-approved to stay in residence, students with extenuating circumstances, such as those in unsafe living situations, can apply to extend their stay.
"Students who have extenuating circumstances may request special consideration from the Residence Admissions office to extend their stay. These are approved on a case-by-case basis," wrote Holly Gibson, manager of marketing and communications for housing and conference services, in an emailed statement.
Gibson also confirmed that all food services except for Centro are now closed.
It is yet to be determined whether students who stay in residence will remain in their current rooms.
"Once we determine the number of students who will need to stay on campus, we will make plans with a focus on student safety, social distancing and in alignment with Public Health recommendations," stated Gibson.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By Esra Rakab, Contributor
“University is a learning experience, it’s okay to fail.”
These words that are intended to comfort me echo through my mind at every instance of academic hardship. University is often advertised as a place for learning and self-discovery, but this narrative often only applies to privileged, higher-income students. As an immigrant student from a low-income background and challenges with mental health, I’ve always been perplexed as to how this wasn’t just a privileged oversimplification of the emotional, physical, and financial burdens that often accompany enrollment in university for students of lower income. After all, when students who are well-off fail courses or decide to pursue additional years of education, their families can often support that decision financially. On the contrary, a student struggling similarly with their education would not have that support to fall back on. With little support, low-income students must navigate an education system designed for students without such pressures and financial difficulties, and are thrown into a cycle where there is seemingly no escape.
Even with the Ontario Student Assistance Plan, numerous low-income families struggle to meet the yearly cost of university to invest in their future. OSAP is unforgiving of students who, often for valid reason, fall below their academic standing requirements. OSAP-assisted students often face familial, personal or financial challenges, which can manifest as academic hardship, since students lose the capacity or time to devote to their studies. Rather than supporting students in such extenuating circumstances, the institution punishes them through academic probation and OSAP reductions or cuts. What implication does this have on the well-being of low-income students, who are pressured to excel in university and graduate as soon as possible, only to be thrown into an increasingly competitive job market? While their debt accumulates and while finding employment post-undergraduate becomes increasingly difficult, the pressure to graduate quickly heightens.
As much as I desperately want to advocate that it’s okay to fail and learn from our mistakes, I have experienced whirlwinds of anxiety in thinking that my mental health might set me back a year to prolong my education or increase my loans and costs.
As a result, any effort to keep my grades sufficiently “competitive” came at the cost of my well-being. Despite this, I could not succumb to the exhaustion and anxiety because the consequences of performing poorly in school would be too great to bear. Institutionally, we are thrown into a cycle where we fall thousands of dollars in debt in hopes of finding a job, yet our education may become jeopardized while we try to stay afloat. Low-income students often also work part-time to help pay fees, but the time commitment comes at the cost of their education; students are locked into positions where their ability to meet standards of academic performance is hindered. Paradoxically, we may come out of university even more financially burdened than when we started, and must find a way out. This is a challenge that higher income students usually do not have to consider seriously, often allowing many of them to enjoy and excel in their education with little financial burden.
I cannot advocate that our grades don’t define us without acknowledging my hypocrisy when I criticize myself for falling short. We’re given little guidance on what to do with failure and how to succeed despite it; The only students who share their marks are “straight A” students; the only students who share their work experience share what positions accepted them, rather than what rejected them. The perspective skews towards one of communal success, while students who are struggling are left on the sidelines.
While individuals can seek support services, like by taking loans or seeking therapy (which is also paradoxically expensive), the solution needs to target the system. Changes in the university structure, financial aid, student support and a greater focus on permitting work-life balance may provide us with stepping stones, but these inherent inequities that lead to disparities in students’ well-being and success need to be addressed by institutions, the Ontario Student Assistance Plan and students benefiting from this systemic privilege.
I’m sick of falling prey to this system. For once, I want to be able to say, “It’s okay if we fail, we can learn from this,” and truly, genuinely mean it.
On Dec. 16, 2019, Minister of Transportation Caroline Mulroney informed Fred Eisenberger, the mayor of Hamilton, that the provincial government had decided to cancel plans for Hamilton’s light-rail transit system, which was set to begin construction in 2020. After Mulroney called for a press conference to deliver the cancellation news in Hamilton, she cancelled it due to safety concerns linked to the large crowd that had gathered for her announcement. Instead, Mulroney issued a statement and cited impractical costs as the reason for the LRT’s cancellation.
“. . . The [LRT] project will actually cost five times more than the previous [provincial] government led us all to believe,” said Mulroney in her statement.
The proposed corridor was set to extend from McMaster to Eastgate Square, amounting to a new 14 km system.
THE MEETING
Prior to this termination, Eisenberger says that the provincial government had given no indication that the project would be cancelled or that a press conference was to be called [on Dec. 16, 2019]. He also claims that on April 10, 2019, Premier Doug Ford had sent Jeff Yurek, the previous Minister of Transportation, to Hamilton to confirm that the provincial government would support the LRT’s construction.
Eisenberger considers Ford’s failure to follow through a betrayal.
“You said Nov. 28, 2018: ‘When people democratically elect someone, if he wants an LRT, he’s gonna get an LRT,’ adding ‘that’s democracy,’” said Eisenberger in an open letter to the office of the Premier.
THE COST
In May 2015, Premier Wynne promised the city of Hamilton $1 billion to fund capital costs of the LRT project. In September 2019, a meeting between the Ministry of Transportation and Hamilton revealed that the preliminary project budget for the LRT, including both capital and non-capital costs, ranged from $4.6 billion to $6.5 billion. The provincial government sent a new estimate to Eisenberger days before the Dec. 16 press conference; this new estimate puts project costs at $5.5 billion.
Eisenberger and his team had questions regarding the new Dec. 12 estimate, which they never had a chance to raise.
According to Mulroney’s Dec. 16 statement, the $5.5 billion estimate came from a report by an “expert third party”.
Kris Jacobson, director of the LRT project office, broke down the difference between capital and non-capital costs. Hamilton has a memorandum of agreement with the provincial agency Metrolinx, where the province is responsible for upfront capital costs. This includes lifecycle costs for the LRT system, such as from construction, purchasing trains and replacing tracks. On the other hand, Hamilton would have been responsible for non-capital costs, such as day-to-day operations and general maintenance of the corridor and stations.
Jacobson noted that without any context, the provincial government’s $5.5 billion estimate is impossible to interpret and verify.
“There’s a lot of options and methodology that are used to develop these numbers that we don’t know . . . so to us, they’re just numbers,” said Jacobson.
THE REACTION
Andrea Horwath, the Member of Provincial Parliament for Hamilton-Centre and leader of the official opposition, held a press conference at Redchurch Café + Gallery, a business along the proposed LRT route. She called on Premier Ford to come forward with the third-party’s detailed cost estimate.
“The bottom line is Mr. Ford’s making up the numbers to justify this cut. So, show us the numbers, show us the report and give us an apples to apples comparison with the other projects that are ongoing right now in our province,” said Horwath.
The Hamilton LRT was estimated to cost $5.5 billion for the 14 kilometre corridor. Similar projects in other jurisdictions include the Hurontario LRT in Mississauga, which is estimated to cost $1.6 billion for an 18 kilometer corridor; the Eglinton Crosstown LRT, which is estimated to cost $12 billion for a 19 kilometre corridor, 10 kilometres of which are underground; and the ION LRT expansion in Cambridge, which is estimated to cost $1.4 billion with an 18 kilometre corridor. All of these projects have gone over their original cost estimates. Yet they continue to receive provincial funding.
Horwath highlighted that Metrolinx has spent taxpayer money buying land and creating documents necessary for the procurement process. Metrolinx is now in possession of the stretch of land that would have been the LRT.
Horwath also publicly criticized Donna Skelly, the Member of Provincial Parliament for Flamborough-Glanbrook and the only Progressive Conservative elected in Hamilton.
“There’s no doubt [Skelly] didn’t support [the LRT] as a city councillor, but as I said that’s not the will of the people of [Hamilton]. They voted for a pro-LRT mayor and Ms. Skelly . . . Mr. Ford should respect the right of our municipality to plan its own future and to determine what transportation infrastructure is the best for Hamilton,” said Horwath.
On. Dec. 18, Horwath sent a letter to the Auditor General of Ontario, Bonnie Lysyk requesting the office investigates the rationale behind the LRT cost estimates provided to the public under the Liberal and Provincial Conservative governments.
“The public deserves to receive honest and reasonable cost estimates when assessing the value of public transit projects that cost billions of dollars,” wrote Horwath.
In her reply, Lysyk stated that, as part of an ongoing audit, her office is currently examining Metrolinx. She also declared that she would examine cost estimates for projects such as the LRT.
According to Skelly, the Auditor General’s report will likely be released by the end of 2020.
THE REASONING
For Skelly and her government, the cost was too prohibitive, not only for the province but also for municipal taxpayers. Evidence for this claim is limited to Mulroney’s Dec. 16 statement, in which she claims that, over the 30 year lifespan of the LRT project, taxpayers would have paid $1 billion.
According to Skelly, the provincial government believes the previous Wynne Liberal government was aware that the LRT could not be built for the $1 billion promise, but had informed neither the mayor nor city council.
“I see it as a smart and responsible decision because my priority, and the priority of our government, is to ensure that we respect taxpayers and their hard earned dollars, and money was being spent on a project that should never ever have seen the light of day,” said Skelly in response to the Mayor calling the LRT cancellation a “personal betrayal.”
THE OUTLOOK
The provincial government’s initial $1 billion commitment to the LRT project will be diverted towards Hamilton’s transportation infrastructure.
Skelly believes the commitment provides an incredible opportunity towards the city, specifically when examining the Hamilton Street Railway bus system.
While $1 billion is not enough to finish the LRT, it will be up to the Hamilton Transportation Task Force to determine where this funding should be allocated.
This task force will be comprised of five non-politically affiliated community members, four of which will be decided by the province and one by the city of Hamilton. Their primary role will be to create a list of transportation projects for the Ministry to consider as viable alternatives to the LRT, due by the end of February 2020.
It has been suggested that the Laborers International Union of North America, a pro-LRT labour union, will be involved in some capacity.
Mayor Eisenberger remains committed to the LRT and continues to urge the provincial government to reconsider their decision.
“I’m hopeful but not confident that [the project will be reinstated], but we’ll do everything we can to try to set that kind of change,” said Eisenberger.
Jacobson and his team leading the LRT project also do not see this as the end.
“Who knows what the future holds for LRT in Hamilton . . . here is a commitment to funding transportation and transit improvements in Hamilton, which is a positive. So there is something that’s going to come from this. What is it? That still needs to be determined,” said Jacobson.
The state of transportation in Hamilton will remain in the air until the task force reports to the Minister of Transportation.
The Silhouette reached out to Minister of Transportation Caroline Mulroney for an interview about the Hamilton LRT project being cancelled, but the Minister declined our request.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
Keep an eye out in next week's print issue for a feature on Hamilton's LRT project. For now, here are the updates:
[Video descripton: Andrew Mrozowski, A&C Editor at the Sil, walks around campus to discuss updates on Hamilton's LRT project.]
cw: misogyny
By Roba Dekamo, Contributor
Most people experience some level of privilege based on a combination of characteristics society considers integral to who you are. Some factors that influence privilege include your race, socio-economic status, sexual orientation, gender identity. Based on these characteristics, your life will be harder or easier, and unfortunately you don’t get a say in the matter. Many folks are able to live easier lives due to privilege. For example, white folks are less likely to be pulled over while driving and men are less likely to be targets of sexual violence. However, one privilege I never considered, likely because doing so would contradict its very nature, is the ability to forget.
A friend of mine invited me to take part in McMaster University’s Mens’ Walk in Solidarity with the the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. As we made our way through campus, we stopped at four memorial sites: the Student Memorial Garden, Nina de Villiers Rose Garden, the Montreal Massacre Commemorative Stone and the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women Memorial. During one stop, a group member reminded us of how frequently we may pass by these sites, often daily, without giving them much thought. He defined this as “the privilege to forget”.
This isn’t to say men are dismissive of acts of gender-based violence and their impacts, but to say that, as cisgender straight men, many of us don’t have to carry the weight of our very safety being threatened on the basis of gender. Therefore, we can either consciously or unconsciously ignore the realities that women and non-binary folks face on a daily basis in terms of their physical security.
My daily decisions aren’t impacted by the threat of violence because I am a man. I don’t consider how late I can stay on campus if I am not walking home with friends. I don’t prioritize being aware of my environment or worry about who I’m surrounded by when I am out dancing. The women in my life can’t say the same.
While walking through campus with my mom, she helped me realize how easily I am able to forget. We crossed paths with a few friends and when one of them, a female engineering student, stated her program, she was met with all the affection I had come to expect from my mom but with one additional praise I didn’t anticipate: she called her brave. She cited the events of Dec. 6, 1989, the École Polytechnique massacre, where a man killed 14 women in a horrible act of misogyny because he said they were “feminists” for being in engineering. My mom reassured this young woman that her decision was hers to make, and that by defying gender norms she had been brave and made at least one mom proud. I’m sure her own mother was also very proud but unfortunately we are still waiting on a quote from her.
My mom found my friend brave for pursuing her passion, for choosing a field of study dominated by men and for doing what she wanted regardless of the standards. Brave for doing what men consider normal. This was another reminder of my privilege to be able to dismiss the concerns that women often have to take into account when making decisions. Will I feel safe and comfortable in this space? Welcomed or alienated? Is the discomfort worth pursuing something I want? I never had to face these questions when weighing my options in high school.
I remember a time in my first year when five women I was friends with mentioned that they always felt better when I joined them on late night escapades to find a kegger or backyard party. I was taken aback by the statement, not just because I’m built like a determined toothpick but because I never considered my physical safety to be in jeopardy by simply being out at night. To be fair, this anecdote isn’t as much about forgetting as it is about learning, but even beyond this experience years ago, these thoughts don’t occupy mind nearly as much as I’d argue they should.
I learned a lot from those friends and they helped me realize a few things: my understanding of the world was very limited and I had a lot to learn, but also we as a society need to share more. Sharing the burden of repairing broken systems and perceptions, but also sharing our experiences to help inform and educate each other about things some individuals may never experience themselves.
Violence against women and gender-nonconforming people exists 365 days of the year, at a rate drastically higher than men experience. This allows a lot of male identifying folks the luxury of tuning out the subject for 364 of those days, and acknowledging its significance as it arises, be it a news article, story from a friend or national observance.
Year round, men need to ask more often, listen more intently and genuinely care for what women and non-binary folks have to say about these issues. We can use each others’ experiences to learn a lot about the things we can never experience ourselves and hopefully this can help change the ways we think and act for the better.
Sandy Shaw, the Member of Provincial Parliament for Hamilton West-Ancaster-Dundas, has returned home from a stint at Queen’s Park. Before the winter break, the Conservatives drove Bill 124 through the House on Nov. 8, a move that has been widely criticized.
“It’s been a long week of fighting for hardworking people in the province of Ontario,” said Shaw.
As a member of the New Democratic Party and the representative for the riding in which McMaster sits, Shaw knows student issues are important for her constituents. According to Shaw, Bill 124 was just the latest in a series of Conservative attacks on students’ funding, freedom and future.
Bill 124, also known as the “Protecting a Sustainable Public Sector for Future Generations Act,” limits wage increases for public sector employees to one per cent per year, among other things. This does not keep up with inflation in the province, which fluctuates between 1.5 and 2.5 per cent yearly.
In a press release, Ontario Treasury Board President Peter Bethlenfalvy explained the rationale behind the Bill.
“The legislation would allow for reasonable wage increases, while protecting the province’s front-line services, restoring the province’s financial position and respecting taxpayer dollars,” he said.
However, the Bill has also been criticized for its effects on workers.
“Bill 124 . . . caps the wages of a million workers of families in the province of Ontario. At the same time, this government is giving themselves promotions and raises,” said Shaw.
“Bill 124 . . . caps the wages of a million workers of families in the province of Ontario. At the same time, this government is giving themselves promotions and raises,” said Shaw.
Despite the pushback from Shaw and the NDP, the Conservative government sought to pass the Bill.
Although Bill 124 was announced in early June, soon after, the provincial government entered an extended summer recess ending in late October. As a result, despite the intense controversy surrounding the Bill, the debate period lasted for less than two weeks. Shaw was concerned the Bill had been passed too quickly.
“I personally did not support this exceptionally long break. I mean, there’s a lot of work that we need to get done in the province. And this is a government that doesn’t take the time to study legislation, to get legislation right,” said Shaw.
Unions across Ontario have launched complaints against the Bill, including the Canadian Union of Public Employees and the Ontario Nurses Association.
According to Shaw, the Act will impact the most vulnerable workers in the province, many of whom are women and marginalized community members. The Act also has specific impacts for McMaster; it caps the wage increases of McMaster teaching and research assistants at one per cent, despite efforts by the Canadian Union of Public Employees 3906, the union representing McMaster teaching and research assistants, to increase wages.
“Students need to be recognized for what they are, which is contributors to the province, contributors to their communities, and that they are struggling under all kinds of burdens imposed by this government … it’s just cruel and heartless,” said Shaw.
“Students need to be recognized for what they are, which is contributors to the province, contributors to their communities, and that they are struggling under all kinds of burdens imposed by this government … it’s just cruel and heartless,” said Shaw.
The provincial government is defending the one per cent wage cap by citing the province’s need to balance its budget. Shaw disagrees.
“Essentially what they’re saying is [that] the deficit is the fault of frontline workers in the province of Ontario, [that] it’s their responsibility to fix the deficit ... And so the reason I think the break was so … wrong [is] because when we came back after five months, the government ran this legislation through the house in two weeks,” said Shaw.
Shaw views the province’s actions as an all-out attack on students. Bill 124 was preceded by budget cuts for schools at both the elementary and post-secondary levels, which include the now unlawful Student Choice Initiative and reduced funding for the Ontario Student Assistance Program.
“In what world does this make sense? In what world does it make sense that students that struggle just to pay this increasing tuition burden, that students [that] struggle with part time, precarious, low-wage, minimum wage jobs, if they can find them at all, now are losing jobs [where] they can earn money on campus,” said Shaw, referring to the SCI and other Conservative education policies that impact education.
Announced on Jan. 17, 2019, the SCI gave post-secondary students the opportunity to opt out of “non-essential” student fees, which included and thereby endangered on-campus organizations and student media. In response, the Canadian Federation of Students-Ontario and the York Federation of Students took the directive to court, labeling the SCI as unlawful and criticizing the unjust procedure that led to its passing.
The Divisional Court of Ontario ruled in favour of CFS-O and YFS on Nov. 21, 2019, stating that the bargaining process between autonomous universities and student unions did not fall within the jurisdiction of the provincial government.
But where do we go from here? Shaw says that we all have to play our part. While Shaw is on the house floor holding the government accountable, students can lend their voices too.
“Students have shown, historically, time and time again, that when they mobilize, that when they speak up, that’s powerful. And this is a government that does not want to hear powerful voices. They want to shut down debate. They want to shut down dialogue,” said Shaw.
While mobilization may be possible, McMaster students have diverse political views, as does the rest of the province. Despite differences, there is one thing that all students may have in common.
“Every student I’ve ever met is concerned also about the world in which they’re going to graduate into,” said Shaw.
For Shaw and the NDP, slashing student services isn’t a solution for balancing provincial budgets. As she returns to the legislature, Shaw pledges to fight for student interests, aiming to ensure that the world we graduate into is one where the needs of vulnerable workers are prioritized.
Recently, Hamilton has seen an influx of craft breweries establishing themselves around the city. With craft beer on the rise, MERIT Brewing Company is one of the industry leaders, brewing locally in their space on 107 James St. North.
Co-founder of MERIT and McMaster alumnus, Tej Sandhu, wanted to create a communal, welcoming space by combining a tap room, brewery, kitchen and bottle shop.
“Really what we hope it is, is a space for community around [MERIT]. So much of what we built this place to be is to facilitate conversation, facilitate our community, and facilitate a great experience for people around these things that we love producing . . . in a space that is easy to get to, that is accessible, that’s inclusive, that is open and that is friendly and warm. Those are things that we had as our goal for what we wanted the space to be but for what we keep as our goals for everything we do as well,” said Sandhu.
MERIT Brewing Company on James Street North.
On Oct. 1, the Ontario Craft Brewers, a membership trade association that represents local breweries in Ontario, participated in a government roundtable in the Niagara region. The OCB represents the voices of approximately 30 per cent of craft breweries around Ontario
“We participated in the roundtable to provide our perspective and make sure the voice of local brewers is heard on potential changes to the alcohol system, which are critical to our future growth and success,” said the OCB via their Twitter account.
(1/2) The Ontario Government is currently consulting on potential reforms to Ontario’s beverage alcohol sector. As Niagara is home to many craft producers, the govt hosted a series of roundtables this weekend w/ reps from craft wineries, distillers, cideries, and breweries.
— Ontario Craft Brewers (@OntCraftBrewers) September 29, 2019
(2/2) We participated in the roundtable to provide our perspective and make sure the voice of local brewers is heard on potential changes to the alcohol system, which are critical to our future growth and success.
— Ontario Craft Brewers (@OntCraftBrewers) September 29, 2019
The association also shared photos with Sam Oosterhoff, a Progressive Conservative member of provincial parliament from the Niagara-West riding. Oosterhoff has claimed that he wants to remove abortion rights. Additionally, he has actively opposed Bill 128 — the All Families Are Equal act, a piece of legislation that removes the words "mother" and "father" in favour of gender-neutral terms allowing all parents to be treated equally. He continues to defend his socio-political beliefs when confronted by the media. The tweets promoting Oosterhoff with the OCB were taken down after being posted.
The original tweets posted by Ontario Craft Brewers following an event with Sam Oosterhoof and Ontario breweries. This tweet has since been removed off of the OCB Twitter account.
Ontario Craft Brewers tweeted this photo with Sam Oosterhoff at a roundtable event. The photo has since been removed off of the OCB Twitter account.
Although not an OCB member, MERIT Brewing Company released a statement about the OCB’s event via their Facebook page on Oct. 1.
“MERIT was not part of this discussion, nor are we members of the OCB, but we would like to say that we are unequivocally against the views of MPP Oosterhoff and outraged over the OCB’s decision to promote their work with him as some sort of gain for the industry or brushed off as part of their responsibility to work with the government,” said the statement.
MERIT turned their attention to the community that was being affected by the OCB’s statement. The team reflected on their values of creating a welcoming, diverse space but found that the industry association that indirectly represents them was doing the opposite.
“While working together with the government is a good thing — when there's someone whose beliefs, outside of beer . . . are directly attacking not only owners of the businesses but staff members, people who are our guests and our consumers, that really strikes a chord as something that . . . the OCB did without thinking [about] what the implications are,” said Sandhu. “. . . We were angry because even if you're not an OCB member, the OCB indirectly represents our industry. They are the only association that we have. Their stance [on] promotion and their communication is reflective of our entire industry in Ontario.”
The OCB has issued an apology on Twitter.
— Ontario Craft Brewers (@OntCraftBrewers) October 1, 2019
Sandhu emphasized that MERIT, and all members of the OCB, had the responsibility to hold higher organizations accountable for their actions.
While MERIT had voiced their concerns on an industry level, Sandhu also reflected on local level concerns in Hamilton.
On Oct. 1, as a part of Hamilton’s “Fast 40” initiative, local and fast-growing businesses were recognized for contributing to the city’s economic development. MERIT Brewing Company was one business amongst many to receive the award given by mayor Fred Eisenberger. In light of tensions between Eisenberger and the LGBTQA2S+ community, while MERIT claimed their reward, they left shortly before a photo opportunity with Eisenberger.
Merit Brewing Company has recently been recognized by the City of Hamilton for contributing to the city’s economic development.
“There has been a ton of conversation internally about the handling of the LGBT community, the mayor’s response to the concerns that have been raised and the threat to our staff that are part of the community as well. [Our] action wasn’t meant to be a massive ‘F-U’ to the mayor, it was a way we could ask for accountability. It was something that was small that we thought would have, at the very least, an impact on showing our staff and our guests that we are standing up for them and not standing with someone who isn’t protecting them,” said Sandhu.
MERIT Brewing Company does not see themselves as a voice for marginalized communities, but rather as a microphone that allows their voices be heard. MERIT felt that their action was a step towards greater accountability among local leaders.
Regardless, you don't take a picture of brewery owners smiling and raising a glass with this guy. It's horrible PR. pic.twitter.com/W7njlY6jMu
— Robin LeBlanc, from work (@TheThirstyWench) September 30, 2019
Eisenberger has asked to sit down and meet with MERIT. While the company did not confirm a meeting before this article was released, Sandhu hopes to open a door for members of the community to start communicating with the mayor.
“Conversation is not enough; action needs to follow a conversation . . . You still need to have conversations to get to action . . . We’re trying to do our part. It’s inherent and embedded in what MERIT’s about, from why we are called “MERIT” to what we strive to do here and have be our experience. This is something that we feel is not only our responsibility, it’s our privilege to be able to speak out on these things and it’s something that we are doing because we’re passionate about it,” said Sandu.
Local businesses like MERIT Brewing Company are lending their voice to members of marginalized communities in hopes of not only starting a conversation but also demanding action.
The Silhouette has reached out via email to Ontario Craft Brewers and the office of MPP Sam Oosterhoff for comment; however, we have not received a response.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
Last Friday’s climate strike brought the climate crisis to the forefront of public conversation. There is an ever-growing awareness of the dire reality of the climate emergency: if immediate, far-reaching action is not taken, there will be major harm to ecosystems and loss of life.
A 2018 report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that, in order to keep global temperature rise below 1.5°C, carbon dioxide emissions would need to fall by about 45 per cent by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050.
Research tells us that the climate emergency is an existential threat requiring immediate, far-reaching action. It is clear that our reliance on fossil fuels is unsustainable.
In order to properly address the climate emergency, we need rapid and unprecedented changes in every facet of society. We need to move away from our extraction-based economy that prioritizes growth and resource extraction, towards a justice-centred approach.
Currently, the university employs measures to understand and address climate change, including the McMaster Centre for Climate Change and the SUSTAIN program. McMaster also tracks and reports on its sustainability measures every year.
However, McMaster is more than just a research institution: the University has considerable financial, social and political power that it needs to use to push for far-reaching change.
Piecemeal solutions like banning plastic bags and reducing buildings’ energy consumption are good steps in the right direction, but they are not nearly enough.
Despite claiming to support pro-environment movements, McMaster provides financial support to the fossil fuel industry.
As of last year, $35.96 million, or 4.3 per cent, of McMaster’s endowment fund was invested in fossil fuel companies. By investing in the fossil fuel industry, the university provides not only financial support, but also social license to the very industries that are harming the planet. By continuing to fund the fossil fuel industry, McMaster helps to uphold a system that is completely unsustainable.
According to the Carbon Majors Database, 71 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions since 1988 can be traced back to just 100 fossil fuel companies. Furthermore, pipelines and other dangerous projects have violated Indigenous land rights in order to extract fossil fuels.
Moving away from this economic system is a much larger discussion, but one tangible step that McMaster can take is to pull investments from the university’s divestment fund out of fossil fuel companies.
Divestment is not an end goal, but is a tactic that aims to “name and shame” the fossil fuel industry. It is morally reprehensible to profit off of the destruction of the planet, and pulling investments out of fossil fuel companies sends a clear message of condemnation.
In 2015, students, staff and faculty members issued petitions urging the university to divest from fossil fuel companies. Former president Patrick Deane struck an advisory committee, which came back with 12 recommendations for McMaster to pursue instead of full divestment.
More recently, MacGreenInvest, a McMaster faculty organization, issued a petition calling on McMaster to divest fossil fuel investments from McMaster’s endowment fund, and reinvest the funds in green renewable energy companies. As of Wednesday afternoon, the petition had over 1,000 signatures on Change.org.
McMaster prides itself on being a leader in sustainable development. It is unconscionable that they pay for this work by investing into companies that profit off of harming the environment.
By Nicholas Marshall, Contributor
This article has been edited as of Oct. 5, 2019
In February 2019, the McMaster Muslims for Peace and Justice and the Muslim Students Association hosted an event called “The Genocide of Uyghur Muslims — Talk by Uyghur Survivor”. During this event, activist Rukiye Turdush spoke about the treatment of Uyghur Muslims in Western China.
MMPJ co-presidents Batool and Elaaf, who requested to have their last names omitted from this article, explained that the event was meant to be a vehicle through which Turdush could share her experiences. Batool added that the event was also meant to raise awareness for the severe human rights abuses happening against Muslims in China.
The Turdush event came just a few months after reports were published of “re-education camps” in the Xinjiang region of north-western China, where Uyghur Muslims were being forced to abandon their religion and face abuse as detainees. In addition to reports of Mosque demolitions, the camps stand as a record of the Chinese Communist Party’s resistance against heterodox opinions in China.
On Feb. 13, McMaster’s Chinese Students and Scholars Association made a public statement accusing Turdush of inciting national hatred, stating that MACCSSA had contacted the Chinese consulate in Toronto about Turdush’s speech. Having anticipated the subject matter of the Turdush event, a group of Chinese students at McMaster created a group on the social media app WeChat specifically for the purpose of opposing the event. Student protestors filmed and protested against the Turdush event. Turdush herself was harassed.
International CSSA organizations have either openly admitted or been proven to be affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party. Based on information that CSSAs at universities around the world have publicly released, the Chinese government has provided funding for individual CSSAs as incentive to populate overseas political events. For instance, the George Washington University CSSA received funding from the Chinese embassy in Washington as motivation for members to attend events welcoming President Xi Jinping to the city.
On Sept. 22, a CSSA Evidence report was submitted to the SRA in favour of revoking the McMaster CSSA’s status.
At this same meeting, SRA representative Simranjeet Singh delivered a presentation to the rest of the assembly called “Why We Should Revoke Club Status For The [MAC]CSSA”.
Singh’s presentation cited a 2018 report from the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission. The report stated that CSSAs across the U.S. have governmental ties with Chinese embassies and consulates, noting that similar operations could be taking place in US-allied countries.
“The nature of the [CSSA] ties [with Chinese government] appears to involve direct subordination and political direction rather than mere affiliation or cooperation,” stated the Commission’s report.
When asked about their role in contacting the Chinese consulate following the MSA/MMPJ event, MACCSSA stated that they did not have an official relationship with the Chinese embassy. However, in a letter responding to questions from the SRA in July 2019, MACCSSA stated that they had cooperated with the Chinese embassy on issues related to cultural exchange and safety education for international students.
The MACCSSA evidence report presented to the SRA took notice of this contradiction, alleging that the use of the word “official” was an attempt to obscure MACCSSA’s ties to the Chinese embassy.
According to the report, MACCSSA’s failure to fully report any links outside of the MSU was in direct violation of an MSU club operating policy. The policy in question required clubs to disclose any affiliations with bodies outside of the MSU.
As of June 19, 2019, this MSU policy now includes affiliations with political parties or governmental bodies, regardless of whether the non-MSU organization is Canadian or international.
Singh cast MACCSSA’s act of contacting the Chinese government, which the SRA deemed to be a dangerous action, as a key detail in his decision to vote in favour of de-ratifying MACCSSA. According to Singh’s presentation to the SRA, contacting the Chinese government was an attempt by MACCSSA to intimidate students into avoiding discussions that criticized the Chinese regime.
During the Sept. 22 SRA meeting, a Chinese student’s testimony highlighted the lack of action from MSU representatives in response to MACCSSA’s reporting of student affairs to the Chinese government.
“If you are privileged enough to not know what it feels like to live under an authoritarian regime — one where saying something critical of the ruling party is often enough to land you and your family in prison — then please, I implore you, please listen to those who do,” said the student.
Slides from Singh’s presentation warned: “Expert testimony, including from Human Rights Watch, has confirmed that students’ safety could have been endangered if the Chinese government … got info about them attending the MSA/MMPJ event.”
“That was enough grounds for us to decide that they are a threat to free expression on campus and may be a danger to students … We cannot normalize the extremist ideologies behind the CSSA’s actions,” said Singh.
The SRA sided with Singh, voting to de-ratify MACCSSA and cut off the club’s access to MSU resources and services.
Over seven months after Turdush’s initial talk, she returned to McMaster on Sept. 27 in response to an invitation from the MMPJ to speak about the treatment of Uyghur Muslims in China. According to Batool, the event was a success, with over 100 spectators and no disruptions.
A previously published version of this article stated that MACCSSA’s act of contacting the Chinese government was considered an attempt by the SRA to intimidate students. This has since been corrected to state that it was considered an attempt by MACCSSA to intimidate students into avoiding discussions that might disrupt the Chinese regime.
A previously published version of this article stated that WeChat is a Chinese multi-purpose app used by members of the McMaster Chinese community. It has since been corrected to state that a group of Chinese students at McMaster created a group on the social media app WeChat specifically for the purpose of opposing the event.
A previously published version of this article stated that no evidence was provided to directly connect the CSSA with the Chinese Communist Party. This has since been removed, and evidence has been presented.
A previously published version of this article did not reference CSSA’s response to questions from the SRA. This has since been updated.
A previous version of this article stated that Turdush returned to McMaster seven months after the de-ratification. This has since been corrected to state that she returned after her initial talk.
This version of the article has been updated to differentiate between MACCSSA and CSSAs around the world.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
