Conservatives’ Priorities Dangerously Out of Touch

To: The Conservative Party of Canada and Deepak Obhrai (Riding, Calgary East).

Dear Conservative Leaders and Mr. Obhrai,

Recently I received a flyer from your party which asked about the issues I feel are the most important. I’m glad you asked, because once again I am appalled by the focus of your party and I want to make you aware that you do not represent me or my family.

The only issue I can broach is gay marriage. Because this is a fundamental human rights issue, and because members of your party hold such hateful and inappropriate views on this matter, I cannot even consider other issues. You see, as long as a government is unable to provide basic human rights and equality to all members of this country, then no other issue matters much. When the government thinks that family and personal issues are appropriate subjects for the federal government to legislate, I fear for the future of our country.

I want to know what right the Conservative party feels it has to invade the bedrooms and personal lives of its constituents. Are you attempting to become the next government of Canada, or the next authoritarian church of Canada?

I believe that you are trying to legislate religious views, and therefore are in direct violation of the freedom of religion that is assured to all Canadians. I believe that you wish to legislate morality, ignoring the right of Canadians to choose their own morality. I am appalled, offended, and very frightened by your regressive views on this issue, and your willingness to use your government positions to try to force Canadians to conform to your views. I think you are well aware that polls have shown that a growing majority of Canadians support the rights of gays to marry, so you cannot claim to be speaking on behalf of the people you represent. It is also clear that Canadians do not want the government to be involved in such personal and moral decisions.

Mr. Obhrai, you have offended me more deeply than any politician. Last year you sent one communication to my home–a post-card seeking my support in opposing gay marriage. You did not ask me an open-ended question regarding how I feel about gay marriage–no, you asked for my support in your goal of defining marriage as applying only to a man and a woman. No other issue was mentioned on this post-card. In my opinion, you have used your position to send hate literature into the homes of your constituents. With all of the other very important concerns affecting Canadians today (prohibitively high post-secondary tuition; rampant poverty and homelessness; the frequency of child and animal abuse; high taxes; environmental concerns; air quality and food quality concerns… the list goes on), you chose to focus instead on this one moral issue, and make it the forefront of your campaign. Tell me, is the threat of gay marriage so heinous that it supersedes all other issues affecting Canadians today? Most importantly, why does this bother you so, Mr. Obhrai? How can you insist that gay marriage is more of a threat to Canadians than terrorism, ecological contamination, and crime?

In the flyer I just received [from the Conservative Party of Canada], you have again placed the issue of “Marriage and Family” on a list between “Defence” and “National Security”, suggesting that I need to be as concerned with two men having a wedding as with terrorist bombings and violent crimes. Aside from making the Conservatives look foolish and out of touch, this shows a frightening lack of perspective regarding what should concern the federal government of Canada.

I want to know, Mr. Obhrai, and the Conservative party, what gives you the right to invade the bedrooms of Canadians and impose your personal views on the country? What gives you the right to use your political office to push for legislation that has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with people’s intimate lives and your own morality? When did the Conservative party start to lean toward fascism, in other words?

Most importantly, I want to know how [Canadians] will benefit from legislation that prevents any two caring people from becoming legally married and establishing a stable family unit.

I’m angry about the focus of the Conservative government today, but more than that, I’m deeply saddened. I’m ashamed to be a member of Mr. Obhrai’s constituency, and afraid for the future of Canada if our next government is at risk of being formed by a group who are willing to administer human rights selectively, to legislate hatred, and to even consider legislation that will control who Canadians may love and marry. The Conservative party is no longer a political body, but an oppressive moral force whose morals, in my opinion, are decidedly amoral. I, for one, think that marriage is always a very moral and healthy option, no matter who is choosing to become married, and that marriage, in general, is good for our country and all people. I would think that this should be a no-brainer.

Mr. Obhrai, you have spoken out (rightly) about “the evils of” (May 4, 2004) racial discrimination, but you do so with astonishing hypocrisy as you practice discrimination against other groups. Do you believe that you can direct focus away from racial discrimination by bringing together all races against a new common enemy, the homosexual? It’s an old ploy, but a dangerous one, for who will be next?

If you have your way and bring the issue of gay marriage into the political arena, will you next entertain the goals of those who wish to outlaw interracial marriage? If you feel that this is a ridiculous suggestion, and do not see the similarity between [prohibiting] racial mixing and [prohibiting] gay marriage, then you really need to take the time to look at this issue with a perspective that is not coloured by your own moral principles. After all, you are supposed to be representing all of your constituents, not only those who share your prejudice, and you must realize that you cannot use governmental controls to affect one group and not have those controls employed against other groups. You are simply taking the first step toward allowing the government unprecedented control over the personal lives of Canadians, and opening the door for oppressive legislation affecting other minority groups.

Let me be clear, Mr. Obhrai–I am not homosexual or bisexual. I am a married heterosexual, business owner, university student and home owner in your constituency and I am appalled at your direction. As a woman working in the technical field, I have experienced many instances of discrimination, and easily relate to the issues of homosexuals. Why is the same not true for you?

Until you are able to speak for all Canadians and call for an end to discrimination in all forms (not just the kind that affects you, personally), you have no right to speak out against it at all. Discrimination affects gays, women, the disabled, and the elderly as much as it does those who are of non-white races. You must include all in your fight for equality, or you effectively include none… When you use legislation to attack one of these groups, you open the door for attacking all minority groups. If you hate one of us, you effectively hate us all.

If you have difficulty accepting the existence of homosexuals, then you must come to terms with that on your own and not allow it to affect how you do your job. The poem below is so well known it’s practically a cliché, but it is so profound and meaningful that it bears repeating:

First They Came for the Jews
First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left, to speak out for me.
–Pastor Martin Niemöller

Tamra Ross Low

“Students are happy to see that Albertans have told their government how important post-secondary education is for a debt-free Alberta,” said CAUS Vice-Chair and University of Lethbridge student Jason Rumer. “Education is a top priority of Albertans; let’s see if all the political parties reflect that in the upcoming election.”

This wish may become a reality, as recent reports from the liberal government show that the party intends to commit 35% of all budget surpluses to universities and colleges, according to an October 26th CAUS report, but there is a small catch.

“Liberal leader Kevin Taft committed 35% of all budget surpluses to a post-secondary education endowment fund, if a Liberal government is elected on November 22. Last year, the Government of Alberta surplus was $4 billion.” [CAUS]

Nevertheless, CAUS Chair Alex Abboud notes that “It’s clear that post-secondary education is in the forefront of Albertans minds, and now the Liberals are making it a prime election issue… the challenge now is for the other parties to follow suit and present their ideas on how to make Alberta’s universities the best in the world.”

AUSU will be watching the parties closely and listing the website addresses of each party on the AUSU home page, so that students can review the platforms and determine which party will be committing the most to improving access to education in this province.

CAUS is also continuing to work to ensure that education funding is a priority issue for all of Alberta’s political leaders. “CAUS presented the idea on creating a post-secondary endowment to the three major political parties during the summer. ‘We got great feedback from those presentations, and it’s great to see a party incorporating students’ ideas in their election platforms,'” said Abboud. [CAUS Oct 26]

The importance of these initiatives is highlighted by a recent Statistics Canada report “showing [that] tuition has gone up by over 270% since 1993 in Alberta’s universities and an Alberta Learning report showing only half of Albertans believe a post-secondary education is within the means of most.” [CAUS Oct 20]

For more information on these initiatives, watch the AUSU front page and see Wise Up website, sponsored by CAUS, ACIFA, ACTISEC, AGC, and CAFA at: http://www.wiseup.ca/ The group will also be producing television ads to air across Alberta on Global, CTV and A-Channel. You can also view the television ads here: http://www.wiseup.ca/television.html

The the Toronto program, cpossibilities targets listeners age 15-29. In one year, the TSO generated 3,000 new members, rising to 9,000 at the end of the second season. The Calgary program will closely follow Toronto’s lead, offering tickets to CPO performances for just $12 each.

“The Marketing and Sales Department will monitor ticket sales for each concert and will determine which concerts will be available to cpossibilities members. If cpossibilities tickets are available they will usually go on sale the Monday of that week’s performances but may be available as far as two weeks in advance, depending on the concert. cpossibilities tickets will be capped at 150 total per concert .” (CPO press release).

Discount rate seats will be placed throughout the hall, including the highest priced areas, which regularly sell for $67 per seat. Each member may purchase two tickets — the guest ticket can be used by a person of any age.

Tickets and memberships may be purchased online at cpo-live.com or through the CPO offices.

If you are aged 15-29, don’t miss this terrific opportunity to experience live classical music for the price of a movie ticket. If you happen to be older, grab a younger friend and take advantage of the guest ticket option.

The 2004 AUSU election closed at midnight on March 20, marking the end of a successful online voting project that was in the works for many months.

Mail-based election were an incredibly costly endeavor, at about $30,000 per election, with most of that money going to postage. The very low response rate and small number of candidates in past elections has made the cost of the election often seem very excessive.

This year AUSU members were finally allowed to vote online. In contrast to some of the problems that have been experienced with computer polls in other universities, the AUSU polling system worked very well, and provided more than enough information for the CRO to confirm the accuracy of the vote. AUSU web staff and the website contractor were on hand for the entire election period to monitor for problems, but it was a quiet week. With the total election cost coming in at under $1500, this election has been a great success all around.

Another boon this year was the higher than normal number of candidates (at the close of registration, there were 14 eligible candidates for the nine positions – a total of twelve remained on the ballot while two dropped out), and many more students expressed interest in becoming involved with AUSU council, or in running for a future election.

The votes have been tallied, and the new council announced as of 8:00 pm, March 23rd. Your new AUSU council will be comprised of:

Karl Low (incumbent)
Shannon Maguire
Mac McInnis (incumbent)
Teresa Neuman (incumbent)
Joy Krys
Lisa Priebe
Cynthia Stobbe
Lonita Fraser
Stacey Steele (incumbent)

The new council will take over by the end of April, after a brief changeover period. At that time, the new AUSU executive will be elected by an internal vote of council.

For vote totals and a listing of all candidates, see the AUSU front page, or the AUSU This Month column in this issue.

“The comparison shows post-secondary graduates earn more money over their lifetime, experience fewer and shorter periods of unemployment, and have improved health and overall life prospects compared to those with only a high school diploma. While these benefits hold true for graduates in all provinces, the comparison also shows that graduates in Alberta earn among the highest gross salaries in Canada and, when taxes and cost of living are factored in, enjoy the highest take-home pay in the country.”

Albertans’ tuition rates are in the middle of the pack with an average fee of $4487 per year. The highest rates are in Nova Scotia ($5557) while the lowest, by far, are in Quebec (an incredible $1862 a year!).

Alberta grads with bachelor’s degrees will earn more than $46,000 a year – the second highest gross salary in Canada [after Ontario] and the highest in Canada once taxes and cost of living are taken into consideration. Diploma and certificate holders fare even better, with an adjusted salary of almost $29,000, which is $2000 more than the second-place earners in Ontario.

Alberta masters and doctorate holders earn more than those in any province in both gross and adjusted dollars. Ontario ranks a steady second place for all types of degrees, while British Columbia is more variable than most – standing at third place for certificate holders, sixth place for high school grads, masters and doctorate recipients, and seventh place for those with bachelors degrees. PEI’s grads are the lowest earners.

Albertans have been enrolling in post-secondary education in droves. Alberta enrolment has been among the highest in Canada, with an increase of 4.5 per cent last year over the previous year.

“It is estimated that Alberta’s publicly funded post-secondary institutions served more than 134,000 full-load equivalent students in the 2002-03 academic year, and there are currently more than 40,000 apprentices registered in Alberta – an increase of 50 per cent since 1997. ”

http://www.learning.gov.ab.ca/news/2003/September/nr-PostSecPays.asp

Sunday, December 14th was one of the hardest days yet for AUSU council and staff, and when it was all over, AUSU’s ranks had decreased by two.

The main item on the agenda was the motion of removal against council VP Finance and Administration, Sandra Moore. This motion had been announced at the previous meeting, but not presented, and was still a pending document. Also introduced at the previous meeting was a motion of reprimand against Moore, which was presented, discussed, and then tabled until December 14th at Moore’s request. President Jabbour was also brought up for reprimand in the November meeting, but waived the two week preparation time. The reprimand motion was passed by a majority of council.

The motion of reprimand motion against VP Moore was in relation to expenditures for AUSU clubs, which Moore had approved. Since Moore was the head of the club’s committee, the AUSU VP Finance, and also the head of one of the two clubs in question, there had been some argument as to in which capacity she had approved the expenditures. Argument was also given that Moore made the purchases without notifying anyone on council, and that money was never allocated for the purchasing of club related gifts.

The November discussion wound down into a she-said, they-said battle, in which Moore insisted that she was not aware she would need approval to allocate clubs funding which was already set off in the budget, while council insisted that she did not have the right to spend budgeted amounts without notifying council and seeking approval, and that the intent was never that the budgeted money would be used for gifts. Moore apologized for the error, and said that she would never have done this had she known it was improper, and maintained that she believed that the gift purchases fell under the AUSU volunteer appreciation policy. She then asked for two weeks to prepare a defence, which is her right under AUSU policy. Her request was granted, and her defence was scheduled for the next AUSU meeting – December 14th.

During this time Moore also prepared a defence for the motion of removal which was announced by the AUSU President at the November meeting. This motion had not yet been discussed, nor had it been officially presented to council. Only a notice of motion had been presented at this point.

Council members were shocked when Moore posted the motion and her defence notice on the public AUSU forums three days prior to the December meeting. The document in question, having never been presented, had not become a part of council records, and also contained information pertaining to employees and a student which was confidential. Both the employees and student were mentioned by name, and details of employment agreements were discussed.

Council members also noted at the meeting that motions of removal such as this probably should not be public documents until they’ve been resolved one way or the other.

The Sunday meeting was scheduled for 1:00. Exactly five minutes prior to the meeting, Moore forwarded an e-mail to council indicating that she was resigning from all of her positions with AUSU, effective immediately.

Council then had three items pertaining to Moore on the meeting agenda: the motion of reprimand, tabled at the last meeting; the motion of removal; and Moore’s resignation. The motion of reprimand was presented first — after a brief discussion about whether a reprimand could be issued against someone who had resigned — and passed by unanimous vote with very little discussion since no defence had been presented, and the item had been discussed at length at the last meeting. The result of such a motion is simply a public recognition of wrongdoing, which is on the official council record.

Next on the agenda was the motion of removal. In light of Moore’s resignation, President Jabbour withdrew the motion. It was also noted at this point that because the motion had never been presented or even discussed at council meeting, it was not part of the AUSU document record, nor had it ever been. It also was felt to contain confidential information which could be damaging to Moore, and which violated the privacy of some parties included in the document. Therefore, council determined that the item should be removed from the AUSU forums, with a note of explanation posted in its place. VP Shirley Barg offered to write the notice immediately after the council meeting.

Finally, Moore’s resignation was considered, and accepted by all of council. Many Council members expressed regret over how difficult the situation and become, and noted that Ms. Moore had many strong qualities which were of benefit to council. No further action is planned regarding the various complaints against councillor Moore, who has also resigned from her committee positions (although she does not have to be on council to sit on or chair a committee) and as a columnist for The Voice.

Councillor Karl Low, who has chaired the AUSU legislative committee for nearly two years, was asked to fill the role of VP finance.

I understand that Sandra would like to move on and explore some new opportunities, and that she is almost finished her studies. Nevertheless, many Voice readers will surely miss the popular Dear Sandra column, which has been an important part of the Voice column line up for more than a year and a favourite of many readers. I wish her the best of luck in her future projects.

Councillor Palamarchuk vanishes, and then reappears

In the most bizarre event that has taken place since I came into contact with council, long time council member Nicholas Palamarchuk was also removed from council at the meeting. Nick and I ran together in the election of 2002, and served together as fellow councillors until I left council in January of 2003.

No, Nicholas was not removed for any wrong doing. In fact, council regretted having to make the move and took every step possible to avoid it.

You see, Nicholas, who has been an active and jovial member of council since March of 2002, disappeared – almost literally. It was the end of October when Nick informed council that he had other commitments and would not be able to attend an upcoming committee meeting. His absence was excused, and everyone assumed he would return soon. But, Nick never came back. Council members emailed him over and over with no reply.

I emailed Nicholas more than once, to find out where he was. I had pictures from his weight loss article to return to him, and wanted to find out if he was home. There was no reply. People phoned Nick at home over and over, but he never answered. The November council meeting passed, and Nick did not show, nor did he indicate he would be absent, though he had been emailed the meeting details. Council members and staff asked about him all the time. We all wondered, where had he gone, and why? Council was required to note that he had missed one council meeting without an excuse. Under policy, that can only happen twice in a row.

I emailed Nick again, and so did others. I even told him we were getting worried about him, and asked that he please respond to let me know if he was ok. Others tell me that they did the same. I also emailed to apologize to him, because the last email we had exchanged contained a query from me that I was afraid he might have taken negatively. I was grasping at straws a little, but I wanted to be sure he had not been offended. It was as good a guess as any.

After a few weeks, people began to worry that Nick might be very sick. He did, after all, have a serious surgery for weight loss this year, as has been well documented in The Voice. Everyone was really concerned, and imagined the worst. Some thought maybe he had an accident, and no one knew who to call. I had spoken to Nick on the phone for the second instalment of the article, shortly before his disappearance, and I was very concerned. He had been in terrific spirits last we talked. I was informed a couple of weeks ago that inquiries had been made, Nick had been determined to be at home and ok, but no one had spoken with him.

For those who wonder why people would be so worried about a co-worker, let me explain. The council of 2002-2004 has been touched by more than its share of tragedy. Among other stressors, four of us [I say ‘us’ because I was on council when these events occurred] lost a parent to cancer in the space of a year. Everyone kept on working, we turned to each other for support, and people bonded in powerful ways.

None of AUSU council or staff knew what to say or think about Nick, but it became assumed that he did not want to be on council. At that time, AUSU decided that Nick’s honorarium should be suspended until he could be contacted, and it was noted at the November meeting that a letter would be mailed.

Council also wrote a hard-copy letter to Nick, reminding him that if he did not contact council or show up for the next meeting, council would have to remove him from council per the policy regarding absence from council duty. There was no reply, and Nick did not attend the meeting. Through this time, Nicholas remained on the AUSU email alias, and received all AUSU email. He was sometimes referred to and even directly addressed in many of these mails (I frequently commented that I’d like Nick’s input on items).

Everyone was bewildered, and concerned, but since there was little choice, Nicholas was removed from council at the Sunday meeting, with regret and confusion noted by all present.

Now for the really bizarre part: the very next day, in the AUSU forums, in the thread regarding the resignation of S. Moore, Nick re-appeared like a ghost from the fog. His cryptic messages do not make any sense to me, and based on the replies that have been posted, they make no sense to others either. He seems to be speaking in defence of S. Moore, and yet even she seems bewildered by his comments. I won’t repeat them here – you all know where to find the forums, and I’m sure this strange story will continue.

Nick also suggests he’s glad to have finally been removed from council, but does not explain why he didn’t simply resign, or state his intent to leave.

His comments suggest that he feels there have been cover-ups in council. However, these would have occurred while Nick himself was on council. I can’t speak for council, nor am I privy to all of councils internal communications, but I have attended every council meeting since I left council, and all meetings while I was on council with Nick. Not once did Nick bring forward any allegations, though he was free to.

In contrast to his comments about cover ups, a motion of reprimand was brought against the council president – Debbie Jabbour – last month, because she had requested an expense payment before the proper approval procedure had been completed, and this motion was passed and the reprimand was placed on her record. S. Moore was also reprimanded publicly this week. Clearly these issues were not covered up, and council has not been afraid to take members to task for wrongdoing.

At the very least, it’s nice to know that Nick is still alive. I’m not sure what happened to make you so upset, Nick, but know this: no one wanted to see you leave, and we all recall that you made the AUSU council meetings so much lighter and more fun. Take care Nick.

Other items

Other items discussed at the council meeting included a lengthy and informative presentation of the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations (CASA) – an organization which AUSU has considered joining.

Council approved a plan to create a new web page within the secure area of the AUSU web site in order to post the minutes from all AUSU council meetings, and to archive past minutes.

Council member Stacey Steele brought forward a proposal to form an AUSU judicial committee, and council gave Ms. Steele and VP Shirley Barg the task of investigating how other students’ unions have formed similar committees.

Finally, Ms. Steele presented a list of the 10 most important projects for AUSU to consider over the coming year, as determined by the AUSU strategic planning committee. Oddly, this list contained eleven current projects , which were:

1. Student Mentor Program up and running
2. 25 Coffee Groups
3. Grad Student Association
4. Automatic Student updating
5. Cost Shared Publication of handbook (an AUSU/AU joint project)
6. On Line Voting for Spring Elections
7. Student Awareness – 4x a year contact
8. 10% of members registered on website
9. Geographic Lobbying
10. Judicial Affairs Board
11. National Student Group Representation

These are all fine goals, though I might suggest that they are just that – goals, rather than projects. Clearly the majority of council focus at this time is on public relations, and increasing the number of students who accessed the current AUSU projects. The first item on the list, the student Mentor program, is still in development but slated to begin in the new year.

Other suggested projects for the new year include:

1. Water for Exam Centres
2. Framework for an AUSU hosted Distance Ed Conference
3. Revising AUSU scholarships, and increasing needs based scholarships.
4. Increased Geographic Representation on Council
5. Higher Profile on AU site
6. Discounts from AU for courses (re: bursaries and contests)
7. A Database of Student Inquiries

As always, if you have any questions about my comments, write me. If you have questions about the plans or actions of AUSU, write them at ausu@ausu.org. Either way, ask, ask, ask!

That’s all folks:

Merry Christmas to all our readers,

Tamra Ross Low
Editor in Chief

NEW HORIZONS:.A NEW ATHABASCA COURSE LAUNCHED! – ORGB 300 is a new course from AU’s school of business. Learn about this course’s innovative learning features.

IT’S BECAUSE HE LOVES ME – Amanda Stamp, and what her case tells us about the value of Canadian laws that are supposed to protect women.

VOICE CONTENT WINNERS ANNOUNCED – Read the winning entries in this issue

Have you filled out the Annual Reader Survey?

This is the last week to have your voice heard! Be counted as a Voice reader, and you might win a prize!

Nominate articles for Best of The Voice

Do you have a favourite Voice article that was published in 2003? If so, send your pick to voice@ausu.org. It might be included in a year-end Best of the Voice issue, or in an upcoming mini-print issue.

“Bill 43 sends a powerful message about Campus Alberta,” says Minister Oberg

Monday I awoke a little too late, prepared to begin hashing together another edition of this magazine. I had a committee meeting at 6:30, but the rest of my day was clear sailing. It was going to be a treat, compared to the day before, when I endured a marathon twelve hour session finishing up my next-to-final assignment for PSYC 343 (great course, but if you plan to take it, make sure you set aside plenty of time!).

Nothing ever goes as you planned it, though. At 10:30 I received a call from the office informing me that the office of the Alberta learning minister had just called to invite me to a telephone press scrum with the minister at 12:30. So much for preparation time!

I’m not going to complain, though. This is the first time the minister’s office has directly invited The Voice to a press session such as this, and having the opportunity to question the minister on educational issues in the presence of other members of the Alberta university press was a unique and much-appreciated opportunity. So, I did some quick research, called in, and hastily composed some questions while waiting on the phone line for the question period to begin.

I had anticipated that many journalists would be ahead of the curve, asking questions about the brand new amendments to the proposed education Bill 43 in response to dialogues between the minister’s office and the Alberta students’ associations. Instead, many of the questions seemed to focus on the most basic aspects of the bill, which had been made public many months before. Inquiries centered around such issues as “why was Bill 43 drafted in the first place, ” “is there really still a cap on tuition fees, if institutions have the ability to raise fees beyond the cap,” and “why does the new bill grant the government the ability to investigate the financial practices of student’s organizations.” Oberg answered all of these questions succinctly, showing that he’s had plenty of practice honing his replies to these basic queries.

They were are all important questions, but ones which have already been widely discussed. The more recent amendments to the proposed bill, however, were hardly touched upon. The experience made me realize that AUSU’s close relationship with CAUS (the Council of Alberta University Students) has probably made our students more aware of the implications of Bill 43, and perhaps we began delving in to the bill at an earlier stage than other schools. AUSU VP External Shirley Barg is also chair of the CAUS organization, and the primary focus of CAUS for many months has been the proposed new education bill.

Supporting my perception that some schools are only beginning to delve into the ramifications of this bill, was a question to Minister Oberg asking if he was surprised by the controversy around the bill. His response was that he was surprised more by the length of time it took for student’s organizations to begin bringing forth concerns about the bill.

So, many of the questions Minister Oberg answered weren’t new, but they are worth repeating as many students are only beginning to become aware of the new bill and how it might affect their educations.

To begin, Minister Oberg confirmed that once an institution reaches the 30% cap for income from tuition, the institution can then apply to increase tuition by 2% plus CPI. He also stated that this provision was put in place to assist the institutions within Alberta that are already operating at the level of the cap due to a decrease in operating expenditures (AU is presumably among these). The Minister said that he’s concerned that without the provision to increase tuition beyond the cap, some universities might have to increase their expenditures in order to increase the amount of money they can collect from tuition, and that this would be “counter-productive spending of tax payer’s dollars.”

When asked why Alberta drafted the new bill, Minister Oberg replied that “one of the reasons why was so that colleges and technical schools would have the ability to give degrees.” He also stated that combining all of the existing education bills into one piece of legislation sends the message that all colleges and universities in the province are working together and are “all equally as important as one another.” This sends a very “powerful message about Campus Alberta,” said the Minister.

It has recently been clarified that the limits on how much tuition can be raised each year will also apply to AU’s course materials fees in such a way that AU will not be able to raise the materials fee by a percentage higher than that by which tuition is raised. This addresses a major concern of AU students, which has been that if AU cannot get enough money by raising tuition, the course materials fee could be raised inordinately to offset this. This is not a baseless concern. In fact, this past year tuition was increased by 7.3%, but the course materials fee rose by 14%. However, what was not clear is how the current AU differential fee for out of province students would be affected by this legislation. I asked Dr. Oberg if the differential fee would be regulated within the bill.

“There is no cap on the out of province differential fee, that’s purely up to them [AU]. This legislation only applies to Alberta students,” replied the Minister.

The next question was a source of some amusement. You see, Minister Oberg has been chided many times for neglecting to remember AU when he’s speaking about Alberta’s post secondary schools. Last year he referred to the “three” universities in Alberta, when AU, of course, makes four. The Minister seems to have taken these criticisms seriously.

When a journalist asked about how the new bill would affect the value of degrees from different universities in Alberta, she referred to students who graduate from schools like Edmonton’s Grant MacEwan College, Athabasca or “any of the other smaller schools:”

“Be careful,” the Minister interjected, “Athabasca is almost bigger than the U of A.”

As heartening as this might be, however, Dr. Oberg still continually refers to AU as the “University of Athabasca.” I’m tempted to start referring to the other Alberta Universities as “Calgary University,” “Alberta University,” and “Lethbridge University” when speaking to the Minister, to see if he corrects me. Which is not to imply that I chat with him often…

I had an opportunity during the session to ask if tuition fees continue to rise, is Alberta prepared to raise the maximum student loans amount to reflect the real cost of tuition. Dr. Oberg responded that the loans amount does typically rise to match tuition increases and the amount allowed for living costs rises each year by the rate of inflation.

Unfortunately, this did not address my question. It is true that each year the amount which a student can apply for per semester does increase, however, the maximum lifetime loans limit does not increase. Therefore, as the yearly limits increase, the effective duration of student loans decreases, and what was once enough money to fund four years of tuition and living allowance now covers less than three years. There are no indications at this time that the lifetime limit will begin to raise on a scale reflective of the actual cost of completing a four year degree.

Regarding the portion of Bill 43 that allows the government to investigate a students’ association in case of financial irregularities, Dr. Oberg revealed that this provision was in response to “two cases at colleges in Alberta over the last fifteen years where students’ associations have absconded with the money” and he said that the new provisions were put in as failsafe mechanisms at the request of those schools.

I asked Dr. Oberg how this provision was any different from the government becoming a watchdog for any type of union, including labour unions. The Minister replied that other branches of government monitor labour unions, which must adhere to “strict monetary rules.” I asked if the provision in bill 43 is similar to the one that labour unions are bound by, to which Dr. Oberg replied: “No, it isn’t. This is purely that if there are any financial irregularities that become apparent then we can take a look at it, is quite simply what it is. This is probably the least invasive of any process that is involved, for example, in government we go through the Auditor General and all sorts of different counter-measures. In students’ associations those counter-measures aren’t necessarily there.”

I also wanted to know “what percentage of the universities’ operating costs Alberta is prepared to contribute, and : if student tuition does rise above that 30% cap, is Alberta prepared to match that sort of contribution with a similar government contribution to the schools?”

“The government contribution has been going up,” replied the Minister. Last year there was between eight and nine percent put into post-secondary institutions around the province, so it has actually kept pace and indeed has probably gone up more so than students’ contributions.”

I asked again what percentage of the universities’ total operating expenditures the government’s contribution represents, however, Dr. Oberg did not supply a figure for this contribution and explained instead that the students’ contribution is unlikely to actually reach 30%.

The reality is to the contrary. I found these figures from AU’s annual reports:

For 2001 & 2002:
Government contribution: 36.2% 2001 & 36.0% for 2002
Undergraduate contribution: 31.5% for 2001 & 32.3% for 2002
Graduate contribution: 16.6% for 2001 & 17.2% for 2002

Total student contribution: 47.5% for 2001 & 49.5% for 2002.
http://www.athabascau.ca/report2002/operat.htm

For 2003:
“Very significantly, 2002-2003 was the first year that undergraduate student fees exceeded Province of Alberta grants” (p. 56)
Province of Alberta Grants totalled 20,758 million. (33.6% of revenue)
Undergraduate tuition totalled 20,897 million. (33.8% of revenue) (p.62.)
http://www.athabascau.ca/report2003/report2003.pdf

These figures may clarify why the government is not prepared to discuss government contributions to the universities in terms of the percentage of operating expenditures.

Another issue touched up is Alberta’s commitment to the promotion of distance learning. In response to a question about the accreditation process outlined in bill 43, Minister Oberg commented that he is concerned that the rural colleges in Alberta are unable to grant degrees, and therefore students who want degrees are forced to travel to “Calgary, Edmonton or Lethbridge” in order to get a degree.

“I’m curious about something you said a few minutes ago,” I later asked. “You had mentioned that you have concerns that many of the rural institutions in Alberta cannot grant degrees, and that students from these areas generally have to go to Calgary, Edmonton or Lethbridge to study. Obviously this completely neglects the fact that Athabasca University grants masters and bachelors degrees and that people anywhere in Alberta can attend. It seems to go along with a lot of the complaints of distance education students, that Alberta really doesn’t recognize Athabasca University.”

“I disagree completely,” replied the Minister. “Athabasca University is something that is an incredibly important part: We are recognized world wide for our distance learning, and I talk often about it. I think you know as well that there are a lot of people that do not necessarily want distance learning, that they would sooner have the learning in the classroom in the typical university environment. So absolutely you can receive a degree by University of Athabasca, but there is a percentage of people that would much sooner have the teacher in the classroom. The idea behind University of Athabasca is to provide an alternative to the initial learning that is out there right now:”

Minister Oberg closed by responding to a question about why there are so many “misconceptions” about Bill 43. He commented that there has been a great deal of misinformation about the bill, even after changes were made at the request of students’ organizations, and that there has been a misconception that the initial draft of the bill was intended to be passed as is. On the contrary, the minister explained, the plan from the beginning was to put the initial draft out in order to provide a starting point for discussions between the ministry and students’ organizations.

He stated that it is the responsibility of the students’ organizations “provide the honest responses to their constituents, which are the students.” He noted that in Alberta his office has had an excellent relationship with students’ associations, which is something he would like to see continue.

It is clear that students’ organizations and the Learning Ministry have a very different view of many aspects of Bill 43, and that these differences are unlikely to be entirely resolved. However, I have also noticed a propensity from some students’ groups to scoff at many of the concessions and comments of the Minister, which may be a valid response, but which make it difficult to determine if these responses are considered ones, or if there is a knee-jerk reaction occurring. There is still much more to be learned about the larger implications of the proposed education bill and how it will affect students.

Much of the concern is not based on what the bill will directly cause to happen, but the loopholes that are left which may allow universities to take unfair advantage of students who are in many ways consumers with very little power, due to a lack of competition in the education market. When every school is full, competition is not a relevant market factor.

Tamra Ross Low – Editor in Chief

Eating was experimental, early after the surgery. Nicholas was not sure what foods his stomach would accept, and said that he would usually try new foods while standing over the sink, just in case. At the time of our first interview, Nick was also beginning the early stages of an exercise routine, which consisted of calf muscle exercises performed while sitting, and gentle, half situps.

At the end of that interview, I promised Nick that I would contact him for a follow up article, about six months after his surgery. Many Voice readers also indicated that they wanted to know more about how Nick was doing. So here we are, six months after Nick underwent one of the most important [and frightening] challenges of his life, and things are looking great!

To be precise, October 18 marked six months since Nick’s vertical banding and gastric ‘y’ bypass surgery. Last week, he reached one of his goals, which was to lose 150 pounds by the time of this six month milestone. Actually, he lost 151, which puts him at 287 pounds and still losing.

To help him keep progressing, Nick keeps a diary of everything he eats. He further safeguards his health by avoiding tea and coffee (which he says taste like crap anyway) and he has not smoked for six years or drank for two years.

His diet is based around the recommendations of the Canada food guide, and includes the recommended 6 – 8 grain products per day; 6 – 8 vegetables and fruit per day; 2 – 3 milk products per day, and 3 meat and alternatives per day. He also can eat all products that are fat free, ultra low fat, or sugar free, but he says he can’t eat “solid meats without chewing 1/2 hour. A steak, I would not try!” says Nick.
He can tolerate raw fruits and vegetables, however, with the exception of celery, but he’s likely to feel nauseated or “up chuck” if he eats sweets or alcohol, if he overeats or if he eats too fast. But, he can now eat limited amounts of dried fruits, popcorn, ketchup, and sweetened salad dressing. He still avoids alcohol, and carbonated and caffeinated beverages.

The dramatic weight loss has meant that Nick has had to restock his wardrobe too. He’s now wearing pants with a 50 inch waist instead of 63 inches, he’s down to a normal XL shirt rather than a 5 or 6XL, and some of his clothing is now size Large.

Nick’s also finding joy in some activities, which he says ‘normal’ people take for granted. Here are just a few of the common – and not so common – activities that Nick now enjoys:
“¢ Bending over and tieing the shoe strings on my shoes;
“¢ Washing all parts of my body while taking a shower;
“¢ Walking up stairs without it being a major task (or stopping every 2 steps to rest);
“¢ Walking 1 to 2 miles a day;
“¢ Doing 20 -30 minutes of exercise;
“¢ Fitting behind the steering wheel of my car;
“¢ Sitting ‘normally’ in a chair;
“¢ Looking down and seeing my toes;
: and the most recent development:
“¢ Going dancing {started my dancing lessons October 3}.

Because of Nicholas’ adherence to a healthy diet and exercise plan, he’s been able to reduce his medication significantly and many of his health indicators are now improving. He has had hypertension, for which he was on four different types of medication at the maximum doses, but now he’s down to 1/4 of what he was taking and will be off medication entirely very soon. His blood pressure is down to 120/64, his cholesterol has been reduced to 3.44, and his resting heart rate is a healthy 68-70 beats per minute.

To remain healthy while losing so much of his body weight, Nick takes a multivitamin and mineral supplement daily, gets a monthly Vitamin B12 injection, and he gets plenty of sleep each night. He admits that he has lost most of his muscle tissue through this process, but he is combating this with an exercise regimen to build the muscle back. Not surprisingly, he says that the “last place to lose is my stomach.”

The biggest drawback of having gastric bypass surgery, according to Nick, is “forgetting to eat. This [is] something even I had a hard time to comprehend at first. I eat 3 meals a day with 3 snacks in between.”

This is a small drawback, however, compared to the benefits that he is only starting to comprehend. Of the changes in his life, Nick says:

Generally, I have become very outgoing, full of fun, happy and I love to wear my new clothing. People have told me that I wear very bright and brilliant colored clothing with a constant happy smile. It is very rewarding to receive compliments, constantly. It helps to live in a community of 520, as everybody keeps an eye on me. My family and friends are my greatest assets.

I must say that I have a completely different life style and am enjoying every moment.

He also revealed that he’s been getting lots more attention from the opposite sex, and that in general he is more approachable because he feels so good about himself. I would debate this last fact, only because Nick has always seemed to be incredibly warm and friendly whenever I have talked to him, but I can also say that he is clearly one very happy man, and his positive outlook is infectious.

It’s difficult to say what the future holds for Nicholas, because he is trying out so many new things as he rids himself of the debilitating weight. This week it’s dancing lessons – next week, who knows? For the immediate future, he plans to complete the few final courses for his Bachelor of Administration – Health Administration degree at AU and then enter the MDE program, which he has a jump on as he is already enrolled in one of the masters level courses.

After witnessing Nick’s motivation and determination through this weight loss process, I have no doubt that he’ll succeed with his educational goals, and whatever else he sets his mind to in the future.

To read the first article with Nicholas, see The Voice, v11 i24, or click this link:
http://www.ausu.org/voice/search/searchdisplay.php?ART=1623

** Please note: Gastric bypass surgery is not right for everyone. Consult your doctor if you would like more information on this, or any weight loss procedure.

“The comparison shows post-secondary graduates earn more money over their lifetime, experience fewer and shorter periods of unemployment, and have improved health and overall life prospects compared to those with only a high school diploma. While these benefits hold true for graduates in all provinces, the comparison also shows that graduates in Alberta earn among the highest gross salaries in Canada and, when taxes and cost of living are factored in, enjoy the highest take-home pay in the country.”

Albertans’ tuition rates are in the middle of the pack with an average fee of $4487 per year. The highest rates are in Nova Scotia ($5557) while the lowest, by far, are in Quebec (an incredible $1862 a year!).

Alberta grads with bachelor’s degrees will earn more than $46,000 a year – the second highest gross salary in Canada [after Ontario] and the highest in Canada once taxes and cost of living are taken into consideration. Diploma and certificate holders fare even better, with an adjusted salary of almost $29,000, which is $2000 more than the second-place earners in Ontario.

Alberta masters and doctorate holders earn more than those in any province in both gross and adjusted dollars. Ontario ranks a steady second place for all types of degrees, while British Columbia is more variable than most – standing at third place for certificate holders, sixth place for high school grads, masters and doctorate recipients, and seventh place for those with bachelors degrees. PEI’s grads are the lowest earners.

Albertans have been enrolling in post-secondary education in droves. Alberta enrolment has been among the highest in Canada, with an increase of 4.5 per cent last year over the previous year.

“It is estimated that Alberta’s publicly funded post-secondary institutions served more than 134,000 full-load equivalent students in the 2002-03 academic year, and there are currently more than 40,000 apprentices registered in Alberta – an increase of 50 per cent since 1997. ”

http://www.learning.gov.ab.ca/news/2003/September/nr-PostSecPays.asp