Greenbelt expansion, Bill 23 and expansion order from the provincial government threaten Hamilton’s 2021 decision to maintain a firm urban boundary
On Nov. 4, the Ontario government posted its decision to expand Hamilton’s urban boundary by 2,200 hectares. This move would expand the city of Hamilton into the surrounding “Whitebelt,” an area between the city and the Greenbelt that is mostly composed of rural farmland.
This decision from the Ford government comes after a 2021 Hamilton city council vote to hold the urban boundary firm, a move that received massive public support, as well as support from local activist groups such as Stop Sprawl HamOnt.
Stop Sprawl is a volunteer organization that advocates against Hamilton’s urban sprawl. According to Nancy Hurst, an organizer for Stop Sprawl, the organization was founded in response to the province’s initial request to expand Hamilton’s urban boundary.
Hurst explained that when the Ford government released their market-based approach to urban development they asked municipalities such as Hamilton to resubmit their official plans. This prompted the city to ask residents of Hamilton for their input regarding the expansion of urban boundaries.
Originally, Hurst explained, the city took for granted that some level of urban sprawl would occur. However, the public pushed back on this, with over 16,000 people responding to the city online that they wanted to hold Hamilton’s urban boundary firm. Stop Sprawl was formed during this process and, according to Hurst, was instrumental in engaging the public on this issue.
On Nov. 19, 2021, Hamilton's city council voted to hold the city’s urban boundary in a 13-3 split. However, after the most recent municipal election, the provincial government has pushed back on this decision.
“All these new councillors were voted in. It was the very next day that the Ford government returned our official plan to us. They just crossed everything out and changed everything. [They] certainly crossed out the firm urban boundary part,” said Hurst.
The Ontario government is aiming to expand 5,000 acres into the Whitebelt surrounding Hamilton.
In a separate but related move, the province is also planning to remove 7,400 acres from the Greenbelt in areas across the province, in order to build more homes in these areas.
Hurst stressed that homes built farther away from cities are often single-family houses that require cars to reach important resources, such as grocery stores. Thus, she explained, this type of housing likely wouldn’t be affordable.
“Affordable housing needs to be built within a complete community. If it's if it's far away, first of all, you're going need to have a car to get to it — so, already, you've kind of lost your affordable part,” said Hurst.
Hurst also stated that building houses on rural farmland would cost the province more money than it would earn them.
“Farm fields don't have electricity, sewer water, built into [them]. That infrastructure needs to be put there. and it needs to be paid for by us. So that's why they say sprawl doesn't pay for itself,” said Hurst.
Hurst also highlighted the potential impacts of Bill 23, an omnibus bill that was passed on Monday called the More Homes Built Faster Act, which made changes to the Conservation Authority Act, the Heritage Act and numerous other pieces of legislation.
According to Hurst, Bill 23 poses an environmental threat, as it weakens the power of conservation authorities. Hurst also argued that a lot of the homes built under this act would not be truly affordable.
Hurst, who has attended numerous Stop Sprawl rallies, discussed the feelings of Hamilton residents towards the province’s push for urban boundary expansion.
“They're upset about Bill 23, and all [of its] disastrous effects, and certainly about the green belt—people are going crazy over that. But, here in Hamilton specifically, people are [upset] that he's messing with our local decisions,” said Hurst.
Stop Sprawl HamOnt held rallies on the weekend of Nov. 19 and Nov. 26, organizing hundreds of community members to voice their concerns about urban sprawl.
A fortunate update on the transportation project haunted by political chicanery
Graphic by Elisabetta Paiano and Andrew Mrozowski, Managing Editor
A RECAP FROM LAST YEAR
We last wrote about the state of the Hamilton light-rail transit system project on Jan. 23, 2020. The proposed project involved the construction of an LRT line, extending from McMaster University to Eastgate Square along the Hamilton Street Railway B-line.
However, on Dec. 16, 2019, the Minister of Transportation Caroline Mulroney informed Fred Eisenberger, the mayor of Hamilton, that the provincial government had decided to cancel plans for the project.
The reasoning behind this cancellation was that the project would have cost over five times more than the previous Kathleen Wynne provincial government had implied. Eisenberger considered this a betrayal on the part of Premier Doug Ford and the Ontario provincial government.
The estimated cost for the Hamilton LRT project was revealed to range from $4.6 billion to $6.5 billion in a meeting between the Ministry of Transportation and the city of Hamilton. This is approximately five times that of the initial $1 billion Wynne promised Hamilton in May 2015 for the project.
The cost was later set at $5.5 billion, without any cost breakdown. According to a statement from Mulroney on Dec. 16, the estimated costs originated from a report by an unnamed expert third party. Kris Jacobson, then director of the LRT project office, noted that without context, the estimate from the provincial government was impossible to interpret and verify.
Andrea Horwath, NDP member of provincial parliament for Hamilton-Centre and leader of the official opposition, called onFord to reveal the third-party’s cost estimate. On Dec. 18, 2019, Horwath sent a letter to the auditor general of Ontario, Bonnie Lysyk, requesting an investigation and report of the rationale behind the LRT cost estimates provided to the public. The Auditor General’s report on the Hamilton LRT costs was set to be released by the end of 2020.
Despite the cancellation of the Hamilton LRT project, it was decided the initial $1 billion commitment from Wynne’s provincial government would be used for transportation in Hamilton, with the total funding being diverted to different infrastructure.
Exactly what infrastructure would be funded by the $1 billion would be at the discretion of a newly formed Hamilton transportation task force. Comprised of five respectable people who reside within the city, the task force was responsible for creating a list of transportation projects for the ministry of transportation to consider as alternatives to the LRT.
This list was due to the provincial government by the end of February 2020. Despite the cancellation of the LRT project and the creation of a task force to plan the diversion of the allocated funding to other projects, Eisenberger remained committed to the construction of the LRT.
WHAT NOW?
More than a year later and the situation has greatly evolved. The Hamilton transportation task force made its recommendations on the allocation of the $1 billion granted to Hamilton by the Wynne government to the ministry of transportation on March 16, 2020. Mulroney later made the recommendations public for the sake of transparency.
“So basically it wasn’t an announcement per se, it was the province of Ontario following up. They said they would do an audit, they did an audit, they did a task force, the task force came back and said that higher-order transit was necessary for the city of Hamilton,” said Eisenberger.
The task force made a total of 15 recommendations. Some of the recommendations included: a "higher-order" transit system and an "intra-city" bus rapid transit or light-rail transit system along the A or B lines in Hamilton. This would resemble the previously cancelled project.
The task force made a total of 15 recommendations. Some of the recommendations included: a "higher-order" transit system and an "intra-city" bus rapid transit or light-rail transit system along the A or B lines in Hamilton. This would resemble the previously cancelled project.
LRT or BRT, the report said, would reduce congestion, bring economic uplift, thus bringing substantial benefit to the residents and businesses of Hamilton. This indicated the task force was still in favour of the Hamilton LRT project and recommended the province reach out to the federal government to acquire the funding required for the LRT project.
This recommendation came after Eisenberger spoke to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in a visit to Ottawa prior to March 2020 about the Hamilton LRT. According to Eisenberger, the federal government was willing to fund the Hamilton LRT project, but the provincial government had to officially ask for the funds.
“That task forced looked at all the transportation options and came back with the same conclusion that higher order transit was necessary for the city of Hamilton. It was the best investment and it was certainly aligned to LRT and since then, the Premier on several occasions, has came to make sure that Hamilton gets the appropriate investment in transportation and LRT is the one that he’s been advocating for,” said Eisenberger.
This turn of events indicated a sentiment towards revisiting the Hamilton LRT project. With that said, there were other recommendations in the Hamilton transportation task force report, including a cost estimate around all-day GO service. The recommendations from the task force were welcomed by Eisenberger as an indication the LRT project was still on the table.
The awaited auditor general’s report on the breakdown of the $5.5 billion estimate for the Hamilton LRT project was released on Dec. 7 2020. Lysyk determined that the original $1 billion commitment from the provincial government only covered the costs of construction and was based on a 2012 Environmental Project Report from the City of Hamilton.
Lysyk concluded in her report that the $5.5 billion estimate that led to Mulroney cancelling the LRT project was a more accurate estimate for the total costs of the project. Although Ford welcomed this news as vindication for his government, the auditor general’s report indicated that the city of Hamilton was misled on the actual costs of the LRT for years.
“The Ministry of Transportation was aware as early as December 2016 that the estimated costs for the project were significantly higher than its public commitment of $1 billion in 2015, which was only for construction costs. The increases were not made public or communicated to the City of Hamilton until fall of 2019,” said Lysysk in the report.
“The Ministry of Transportation was aware as early as December 2016 that the estimated costs for the project were significantly higher than its public commitment of $1 billion in 2015, which was only for construction costs. The increases were not made public or communicated to the City of Hamilton until fall of 2019.”
Bonnie Lysyk, Auditor General of Ontario
According to Eisenberger, the city of Hamilton and the province of Ontario have a signed memorandum of understanding which outlines how the project will proceed. In the event of budget constraint, it is documented that the provincial government would lobby at the federal level to gain more funding for the project.
“[The city’s] level of involvement is not at the highest order, but certainly awareness as to what direction [the province is] going [in] . . . So true to that original [memorandum of understanding], [the provincial government is] following up with the federal government and as I understand it, they are warmly received. Now it’s a matter of discussions on who’s going to contribute what,” explained Eisenberger.
While the project is now set to conclude at Gage Park, Eisenberger plans to continue the project in phases.
“We’re not going to be tearing up everything from Eastgate to McMaster,” emphasized Eisenberger.
Currently there is no estimated time as to when the project will be completed. However, the mayor is looking forward to the benefits that the project will bring.
“The whole idea behind this project was to inspire new opportunities, to inspire new development, to inspire more people coming along that corridor to provide more business opportunities. More shops, more stores and more housing,” said Eisenberger.
The Holland Marsh Highway proposed by the provincial government plans to increase connectivity in the region but at the expense of the wetlands’ well-being
C/O Bryan Hanson
Plans for the Bradford Bypass, also known as the Holland Marsh Highway, is an east-west, four-lane highway between Highways 400 and 404 that has been in the works for decades. The proposed highway would connect York Region and Simcoe Country, to ease traffic congestion and support commuters from both communities. Environmental groups say that these benefits would be at the expense of the well-being of the Holland Marsh Wetlands.
Initial studies were conducted by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation in the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s. All of the studies concluded that there was a need for this type of provincial highway.
The ministry studies cited expected significant population growth in the region. An environmental assessment was conducted in 1997 and the project received approval in 2002.
The project was then shelved due to its incompatibility with the provincial A Place to Grow Act. It was not until August 2019 that the Ministry of Transportation approved its re-commencement.
The highway is one of two controversial transportation projects resurrected by the provincial government in 2019. The other was Highway 413 which was shelved by the previous Kathleen Wynne Liberal government due to similar concerns regarding its potential to harm the surrounding natural environment.
The Ford government sought to fast-track these developments by exempting them from the Environmental Assessment Act. It has also recently been reported that there are nearby large expanses of real estate owned by eight of Ontario’s most powerful land developers.
Half of these developers — which include John Di Poce, Benny Marotta, Argo Development and Fieldgate Homes and the Cortellucci, DeGasperis, Guglietti and De Meneghi families — are connected to the Ford government through former members of the party or current officials. Most have donated a great deal of money — at least $813,000 — to the Progressive Conservative party since 2014.
The Bradford Bypass had and continues to have strong support from municipalities, which have grown substantially over the past four decades. These areas are expected to continue to grow in the future.
"For decades, commuters in York Region and Simcoe County have been demanding a connecting link . . . The Bradford Bypass will bring relief to drivers, support development in York Region and Simcoe County and bolster Ontario's economy following this pandemic,” said Natasha Tremblay, a spokesperson for Ontario Transportation Minister Caroline Mulroney, in a statement to the CBC.
While the main benefits of the highway will be less traffic congestion and the connection of York Region and Simcoe Country, supporters of the project have pointed to its economic benefits, particularly as part of the province’s economic recovery from the pandemic.
The project will generate a number of jobs during its construction. Once completed, it would further support the creation of more local jobs by connecting communities to major job centres in the Greater Toronto Area and encouraging more business within the area.
However, the Holland Marsh Highway would pave over the provincially significant wetlands. It would impact endangered species, migratory birds, aquatic life and generate significant groundwater contamination.
“Lake Simcoe is stressed by development impacts, salt from the expanding road network and excess nutrients already. Historically, the Holland Marsh filtered pollutants from the waters that flowed into the lake. It is extremely sensitive and a wholly inappropriate place to put a highway,” said Claire Malcomson, the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition's executive director in an interview with Barrie Today.
Local groups, including the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition, have consistently voiced their concerns about the project and called on the government to reconsider, at the very least, conducting a more up-to-date environmental assessment.
Student organizations on campus, including Mac Climate Advocates and McMaster Outdoor Club, also have similar concerns about the project and its impact on the marsh.
“So because it's been in the works for quite a while, [because of] the connectivity issues, I think the actual standards that they've been using to conduct these assessments is probably even older [than the initial 1997 assessment]. As mentioned before, just to reiterate, so much has changed in the last 30 years or so,” said Vidushi Saxena, co-president of Mac Climate Advocates.
Students also raised concerns about how the construction of this project might encourage urban sprawl and new housing development, further damaging the wetlands and its impact on farms in the area. Holland Marsh is considered a significantly productive specialty crop agricultural area.
“[The highway] will encourage housing developments in rural areas and that will damage wetlands and farms and those are two things that have been really important throughout the pandemic . . . Having local agriculture is super important to climate change and it's been important throughout the pandemic because it's more affordable to transport food locally,” said Jenn Cross, the other co-president of Mac Climate Advocates.
Additionally, Cross noted that given the rise of remote work due to the pandemic that many have noted is likely to continue, it is possible that the need for such a highway is no longer quite as high.
“There'll always be a reason to go through with [projects such as the Holland Marsh Highway] but we have to be sure that we're looking at it holistically, looking at the big picture and recognizing the significant consequences that might arise . . . There is always an alternative as well” said Saxena.
“There'll always be a reason to go through with [projects such as the Holland Marsh Highway] but we have to be sure that we're looking at it holistically, looking at the big picture and recognizing the significant consequences that might arise . . . There is always an alternative as well.”
Vidushi Saxena, co-president of Mac Climate Advocates
Madeleine Hayes, the environmental coordinator for McMaster Outdoor Club, also stressed the importance of students being aware of developments and projects such as this highway.
“I think it’s important for students to get involved . . . There are students from that area too, right? The more you get involved in local [advocacy], the more — globally — different things are going to happen, right? Because that's how change happens, a little bit at a time. So by bringing attention to local issues like this, I think it really makes a difference,” explained Hayes.
Earlier this month, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau asked Canada’s governor general to dissolve parliament for a 40-day federal election campaign. The election will be held on Oct. 21.
“In every election, as Canadians, we get to make an important choice for the future of our country. We get to decide what kind of future we build together,” said the prime minister in a press conference last Sept. 11.
The 2019 campaign, leading up to election day on Oct. 21, is taking place only months after Trudeau violated Canada’s Conflict of Interest Act. He accepted full responsibility for attempting to influence the attorney general during the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, a Quebec-based construction company that was bribery and fraud charges at the time. In the aftermath of these events, the upcoming federal election will determine whether the Liberal Party will retain a majority government.
Residents of the Hamilton West - Ancaster- Dundas riding will soon be electing their Member of Parliament.
The Silhouette spoke to Liberal, Conservative, NDP and Green party candidates about how they believe their parties will benefit the students of McMaster.
Students interested in learning more about the candidates or their platforms should attend MacVotes’ Federal Candidates Debate in MUSC Atrium on Oct. 8, 2019.
Filomena Tassi, Liberal Party
The Honorable Filomena Tassi, the incumbent for the Hamilton West - Ancaster - Dundas (HWAD) riding, remains optimistic about the upcoming election.
“The Liberal Party has a plan, has values that we want to make sure Canadians embrace as we move forward,” she said.
For her, these values will lead to a diverse, open and inclusive government who believes in Canadians, who wants to give everyone a chance and who wants to level the playing field so that everyone has a just and fair chance at succeeding.
Born and raised in Hamilton, Tassi has been a high school chaplain for the past twenty years and believes that government policies greatly benefit from student engagement. Her re-election campaign is already underway and touches upon several issues she believes students are passionate about, including affordable housing and education, job creation and the environment.
“We have an advisory group that consists of representation from McMaster, Mohawk and Redeemer,” said Tassi.
According to Tassi, the advisory group meets on a regular basis and is continuously provided with input from leaders of these three post-secondary institutions. This is to ensure that the group is responding to the needs of youth and keeping their voices in mind when creating policy. Tassi stated that, if elected, she would continue consulting with student groups.
“I want to make sure moving forward that we continue on that same front, an open communication where the student leadership is able to share with me what the student body wants and is looking for from the Federal Government,” she said.
Much of the Liberal platform for the upcoming election is yet to be announced.
Bert Laranjo, Conservative Party
Bert Laranjo immigrated to Canada from Portugal at the age of nine and is a registered nurse by trade. Having managed Cambridge Memorial Hospital’s multi-million dollar emergency department, he believes he has the qualifications to serve as MP.
With regard to his role in the Conservative Party, Laranjo says that he wants to ensure, as Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer has said, that the healthcare system remains intact and that funding continue to be transferred towards the provinces.
“Most families are feeling … they are short at the end of the month and just getting by. We don’t want you to just be getting by. We want to help Canadians to get ahead. To have money set aside for education, have money to pay bills,” said Laranjo.
According to Laranjo, the Conservative government will serve students by prioritizing job creation.
“That’s something that the Conservative government has always been focused on — to make sure when you come out of school that the opportunities are there so there’s a return on your investment,” he stated.
In addition to job creation, the Conservative platform includes reducing taxation on income bracket, repealing Bill C-69, which provides a process for assessing the environmental, health and socioeconomic effects for energy and resource projects, eliminating the Trudeau’s government carbon tax and attempting to end illegal border crossings into Canada.
Yousaf Malik, NDP
Yousaf Malik is a graduate from McMaster and holds an M.A. in economic policy. He has lived in the Hamilton West - Ancaster - Dundas riding for the last 10 years. In that time, he has been a public advocate for the voices of everyday Canadians, running for School Board Trustee in 2018.
“One of the main drivers for why I’m doing this is [that] we have four generations in the household, from my grandma who is 85 years young, to my son who is now almost nine months. And from what I see is, our government has consistently not followed through [on] their promises and commitments to all four generations,” said Malik.
He brings forward the issue of some students being unable to afford education. He refers to education as ‘the great equalizer’ and declares that education should not be limited to those who are able to afford a large loan or who have other resources to pay for school.
“I am so happy to be representing the New Democratic Party which is committed to increasing support for students and the increased federal bursary for students, working with provincial government and universities and colleges to reduce tuition with the ultimate goal of making university and college education post-secondary education tuition-free in Canada,” he stated.
He is also interested in Canadian healthcare system reform. He says the NDP is committed to creating head-to-toe coverage—including prescription medication, vision, dental and mental health.
“It’s not right that we have a system in Canada where you are able to see a doctor, but then at the end of the day, you’re not able to, in many cases, afford the medication you need to actually get better,” he said.
The NDP hope to lower Canada’s debt-to-GDP ratio over the next decade; both the Conservatives and Liberals intend to balance the budget in the next five years.
Their platform emphasizes the creation of 500,000 affordable housing units and support first-time buyers, incentivized zero-emission automobiles and established a federal minimum wage of 15 dollars per hour.
Victoria Galea, Green Party
Victoria Galea is a McMaster alumnus, having graduated with an Honours B.A. degree and will soon complete an M.A. in International Relations.
She has served as the CEO for the Green Party Riding Association for the last two years and believes that the Green Party is the only legitimate option for voters interested in changes in climate action policy.
“This federal election is crucially important to make climate action policy happen. The Green Party is the only option if you care about [the] climate emergency,” said Galea.
On top of pushing towards free post-secondary education in Canada, Galea stresses the importance of mental healthcare on-campus. Having seen firsthand the lineup outside the McMaster health clinic, she mentions that the significance of mental healthcare providers is something the Green Party wants to put forward to effect — and one that people should support if they want ‘preventative’ and not simply ‘reactive’ mental healthcare services.
The Green Party platform this election may captivate the student audience with plans to forgive the portion of existing federal student debt, make college and university tuition free and provide 1 billion dollars annually to municipalities to hire youth.
“We can pay for all of Canadian students’ free post-secondary education by removing the current subsidies in place that the government provides to fossil fuel corporations,” she said.
“By no longer enabling the fossil fuel industry to develop, we are able to get better for every individual in Canada and not just the one per cent.”
The MP candidates stress the importance of youth participation in the upcoming election and emphasize the particular importance of this federal election for students and young adults.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
As post-secondary students across Ontario begin to experience the impacts of the updated Ontario Student Assistance Program (OSAP), the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance (OUSA) has launched a province-wide campaign encouraging students to express their concerns with the OSAP cuts and demand change.
Earlier this year, Premier Doug Ford’s Conservative government announced several alterations to OSAP. Some changes include the removal of the six month post-graduation grace period in which student loans do not accrue interest, cuts in funding and grants going to low-income families, as well as an update to the definition of independent student.
While the Ford administration claims that the decision to cut tuition by 10 per cent keeps Ontario’s most vulnerable families in mind, many students are unconvinced.
“I work two part-time jobs on campus, work full-time during the summer and still rely on OSAP grants,” said one McMaster student in OUSA’s campaign video on OSAP cuts.
[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7meTavY8DnY[/embedyt]
On Sept. 10, 2019, OUSA announced a letter-writing campaign in response to recent changes made by the provincial government to OSAP.
Formed in 1992, OUSA is a provincial lobbying organization that represents 150,000 students at eight student associations across Ontario, including McMaster. It aims to effectively lobby the provincial government for change and to ensure that Ontario students receive an affordable post-secondary education.
In response to their call for participants, OUSA received over 200 letters from students across the province who shared how they would be impacted by the OSAP changes.
The cuts to OSAP have caused Adam Yu, a second year McMaster student in integrated biomedical engineering and health sciences, to rethink his post-graduation plans.
"It's one less safety net for me when I graduate, which really makes me worry about my financial outlooks. It dissuades me from pursuing my aspirations of medical school,” said Yu in his letter.
Others have had to take on take on additional work hours, which affects the amount of time they can spend on school and extracurriculars.
"OSAP has had a huge effect on my student life this year. As a result of OSAP cuts I have had to actively look out for part time jobs which will have an effect on the amount of time I can spend on extracurriculars that I enjoy doing,” wrote a student who wishes to remain anonymous.
Students also expressed worry about paying off their student loans. Previously, there was a six month period post-graduation in which interest was not charged on student loans. The removal of the grace period was another cause of concern that students mentioned in their letters.
“I am scared that I won’t have the grace period before interest starts once I graduate,” said Jessica Lim, a student in their last year at the University of Toronto Scarborough.
OUSA has now called for the provincial government to reverse the changes made to OSAP and consult students for a framework that meets their needs in a public letter sent to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, Ross Romano.
“The adverse effects of these changes have already been felt by students across the province who rely on financial assistance to access post-secondary education and enter the workforce,” said OUSA in their letter.
The letter continues to say that some students have been forced to postpone or withdraw from their post-secondary education because they no longer have the financial assistance required to continue with their studies.
OUSA has asked that all students affected by or concerned about the changes made to OSAP sign the letter and, if comfortable, add their own personal story to send to Premier Ford, Minister Romano and their local member of provincial parliament.
[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]
On Aug. 30, the Progressive Conservative provincial government announced a new directive mandating all Ontario universities to “develop, implement and comply” with formal free speech policies by January 2019. According to the official statement, if a university is not compliant, the particular institution may be subject to a reduction in operating grant funding.
In June, McMaster released updated freedom of expression guidelines for event organizers and participants following an ad-hoc committee report and first draft. As of now, it is unclear whether these guidelines qualify as a policy under the new directive.
“We are hopeful that this guidance document will meet the needs of the government,” said McMaster director of communications Gord Arbeau. “We are waiting to hear back from the province about the specifics around that directive that was issued a few weeks ago.”
Both the McMaster Student Union and Canadian Union of Public Employees 3906 which represents sessional faculty, post-doc fellows and teaching assistants, have objected to the Ford government’s mandate and McMaster’s current stance on the issue of freedom of expression.
In particular, MSU president Ikram Farah stated that she acknowledges concerns from students who feel that the directive for a mandatory free speech policy could suppress the voices of marginalized communities.
“What I have heard from marginalized and racialized students is that there is a fear that free speech legislation will be used to further limit the ability to call attention to truths,” said Farah.
Nathan Todd, CUPE 3906 recording secretary, also expresses concern with the province-mandated policy. In particular, CUPE 3906 stands with the official CUPE 3906 stance that the free speech policy could negatively affect marginalized communities and actually prevent freedom of expression.
“Our main concern is that it could give the university too much power to prevent things like organizing and mobilizing,” said Todd.
CUPE 3906 is specifically worried that the current McMaster free speech guidelines and any future policy will limit protest.
“We released a response to that policy and our policy is essentially the same for this one for Doug Ford, which is that it is actually quite anti-free speech in a lot of ways and hasn't been developed or implemented responsibly or democratically,” said Todd.
The Student Representative Assembly unanimously passed a motion in June stipulating that the MSU “advocate to the university that continuous revisions be made” to the freedom of expression guidelines.
At the Sept. 23 SRA meeting, Farah urged SRA caucus members to actively gather student feedback on the issue.
“Should it be a policy, at least let it be the best guidance document possible that is reflective of the students who will be affected by it most,” said Farah.
CUPE 3906 has been taking action by coordinating with its union members to establish a formal response to the new policy.
Despite the MSU and CUPE 3906’s objections to the university’s stance on free expression, McMaster stands by its guidelines and commitment to “open and civil discourse.” Nevertheless, the university is willing to hear out different sides on the matter and even amend the current guiding document.
“If someone came forward with other ways of improving that document or with suggestions on how that document could be better understood or positioned, then absolutely we would be open to considering that,” said Arbeau.
For now, the university is waiting to hear back from the provincial government. By imposing a firm directive and a short timeline, the Ford government has brought the subject of free speech back front and centre at McMaster and across Ontario.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
On June 30, the provincial government, under Doug Ford’s leadership, altered the Ontario Health Insurance Plan so that children and young adults with private health benefits are now no longer able to access OHIP+, the program which offered free prescriptions to those under 25.
There is a lot to be said about the Progressive Conservative Party that was recently elected, and with the speed at which they are changing things, it feels almost silly to focus on one change. But the recent changes to our pharmacare challenges the autonomy people, especially young people, ought to have over their bodies.
If you are a McMaster undergraduate student, you are probably on the McMaster Students Union health plan. It should noted, right away, that the MSU health plan is a fairly comprehensive one, offering both vision and dental care, coverage for 80 per cent of the cost for a huge selection of prescription drugs and only costs $106.00 for the entire year.
This plan is a good one, but like most private insurance, it only benefits someone in relatively good health. If a person needs multiple medications, dental care and vision care, then they are forced to either pay for multiple medications, opt out and receive the medications they need through OHIP+, or be out of dental and vision care, two types of health young people already neglect on a regular basis. All of these three options require one to compromise on their health in some regard.
For many individuals, it takes some trial and error before they land on the correct prescription drug; this is particularly true for those seeking birth control or antidepressants. It takes birth control about three months to see how it affects one’s body, and six to twelve weeks before knowing if an antidepressant is working effectively.
With this in mind, it would be hard to convince someone who needs medication to spend money on drugs which may not help until they find the exact combination that alleviates their pain. Young people already self-medicate all the time, whether it be through other recreational drugs or through health supplements.
Being able to exist with effective pain management is one of the surefire ways to improve student life. It helps young people learn how to take care of their bodies and builds a healthy relationship based on nourishing their body when it hurts. No amount of money saved from ‘cutting corners’ is worth sacrificing a generation of young people with poor mental or physical health.
Young people should not have to do this sort of calculus when it comes to their health. Ideally, no one would have to. The PC government is presenting this change as cutting corners, but what it really does is limit one’s ability to successfully navigate medical care.
As we move forward through the next four years, it is imperative that we keep an eye on what the provincial government is doing and keep critiquing, keep fighting back. A lot of the cuts that are coming will seem innocuous, but mean cutting necessities for others.
To those entering the school year, consider the pros and cons of opting out of the MSU health plan. For those who advocate on behalf of the student union, it is worth tripling your efforts given the speed at which legislation is occurring. In the meantime, it may be time to reconsider purchasing another order health supplements before the flu season kicks in.
