# Good News for British Columbia



## Gunner (22 Apr 2005)

Well, it looks like the NDP in British Columbia are imploding.  

Hopefully the same thing happens on the Federal scene (unless you want your domestic operations medal....)

http://www.canada.com/vancouver/story.html?id=6114dcd9-d4ca-4f82-9e58-c56c847267fe


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Apr 2005)

Unfortunately, one candidate is unlikely to represent "imploding".

The BC NDP had a chance to demonstrate whether they could govern moderately and prudently when Glen Clark's government won a legislative majority without obtain the largest vote share.  They failed.  I had voted for a NDP candidate and foolishly concluded while viewing the night's results that the narrow win might actually lead to a good government in BC without the usual ideological pendulum swings.  I was wrong.  It will take a long, abusive, and incompetent string of non-NDP governments before I will consider returning NDP to government in BC; nothing they promise interests me anymore.  Yes, I'm close-minded in that regard.  No, I don't care.


----------



## Gunner (22 Apr 2005)

> Unfortunately, one candidate is unlikely to represent "imploding".



Dare to dream.... 



> I had voted for a NDP candidate



Let it out brother... let it out.  I campaigned for the NDP back in high school after 11 years of socialist brain washing, er, I mean school.  After almost 20(+) years I still wake up at night screaming and have to use alcohol to induce sleep.   

Cheers,

Gunner (recovering NDPer)


----------



## Gager (23 Apr 2005)

Gunner said:
			
		

> Dare to dream....
> 
> Let it out brother... let it out.  I campaigned for the NDP back in high school after 11 years of socialist brain washing, er, I mean school.  After almost 20(+) years I still wake up at night screaming and have to use alcohol to induce sleep.
> 
> ...



Yes .. the Re-Education Camps tend to have that effect. *Drinks*


----------



## winchable (23 Apr 2005)

I voted for the canadidate in my local riding and I voted NDP, he lost, unfortunately the gentlman who lost would have been a far better candidate then the guy who won.

Sometimes you have to vote for the wrong party to get the right candidate is something someone told me once.

I have yet to campaign for any political party, despite what myself or others perceive to be my political leanings, because I want my adult life to be full of deep uninterrupted sleep.  ;D


----------



## TCBF (23 Apr 2005)

"Let it out brother... let it out.  I campaigned for the NDP back in high school after 11 years of socialist brain washing, er, I mean school.  After almost 20(+) years I still wake up at night screaming and have to use alcohol to induce sleep."

Don't feel bad.  Even Barbara Amiel was a Commie once.

Tom


----------



## muskrat89 (23 Apr 2005)

> I have yet to campaign for any political party, despite what myself or others perceive to be my political leanings, because I want my adult life to be full of deep uninterrupted sleep.



LOL - I was a riding President for COR(NB)  a longggg time ago. The following election, they self-destructed


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Apr 2005)

Allright since we are into confessions,...I was actually a card carrying Ontario Liberal [on paper] once. It was just for the local riding nominations and just about everyone at the old Correctional Centre did this so we could put someone there who would fight to keep us open,....huge failure, just like Dalton.


----------



## Cloud Cover (24 Apr 2005)

I must admit I once voted Green, but only because Bronagh Morgan talked me into it with her charm, wit, cookies and innocent promises: . 
http://londongreens.org/Bios.htm


The lack of success in the Greens seems to contradict this:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28609.0.html

And, such lack of success is probably due to this: 
http://www.greenparty.ca/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=29&MMN_position=20:19


No damage done, these air heads will never succeed anywhere unless the federal NDP implodes.


----------



## HItorMiss (24 Apr 2005)

*cries* I once worked for the Liberal Party of Nova Scotia..... Oh god I some one please tell me I'll be ok


----------



## sdimock (25 Apr 2005)

Don't worry HitorMiss, every few years we get the chance to make (vote in) all new mistakes  

Chimo


----------



## Canuck_25 (28 Apr 2005)

Im actually working for the provincial NDP at the moment (watches for spears)


 I have to say, the Liberals have killed B.C.'s small communities. You city folk seem to get the best end with them 


 Hospital closers, school closers, 35 person class rooms. 4 hour waits to get a finger reattached. It's total bullshit. Yes, you can bash Glen Clark, but really, was the economy doing all that great across Canada during his reign? The man did take on Ottawa and Washington, to defend BC. He was a British Columbian before he was a Canadian. The media, federal and provincial parties tore him apart when he was in power, wrongly charged with the bloody casino case, and now he works for Jimmy patterson, Canada's great entrepreneur. 

 Learn a little about Glen Clark, he certainly has a interesting biography.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (28 Apr 2005)

Canuck_25 said:
			
		

> Yes, you can bash Glen Clark, but really, was the economy doing all that great across Canada during his reign?



Dude, what are you smokin'?

http://www.bcbc.com/archive/ppv7n1.pdf#search='GDP%2019961999%20BC%20Canada'
http://bcbc.com/archive/bcesv4n2.pdf


----------



## Drummy (28 Apr 2005)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> LOL - I was a riding President for COR(NB)   a longggg time ago. The following election, they self-destructed



Muskrat89,

Just noticed your post this evening. I'm a long time NB resident, now retired and living in Swan Creek. I don't know if you knew him or not(you probably did), but Ab Rector passed away about a month or 6 weeks ago. Heart problems IIRC.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news      Drummy


----------



## Canuck_25 (28 Apr 2005)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> Dude, what are you smokin'?
> 
> http://www.bcbc.com/archive/ppv7n1.pdf#search='GDP%2019961999%20BC%20Canada'
> http://bcbc.com/archive/bcesv4n2.pdf




 Dont let the corporations influence you my friend, ill go check stats canada


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Apr 2005)

>I have to say, the Liberals have killed B.C.'s small communities. You city folk seem to get the best end with them

Actually, the NDP has traditionally expected its stronghold of support to be in the cities (Vancouver/Victoria) and has spent money accordingly.   There's a reason BC's smaller communities and rural regions traditionally inclined Socred (now Liberal).   Government services cuts certainly had a disproportionately negative outcome on smaller communities.

OTOH, you may have noticed the BC Liberals do occasionally back away from proposals (eg. Coquihalla privatization) in the face of public outcry.   I never knew (I can't remember an example) the NDP to be turned aside from an ideological course of action.   Clark's government proceeded merrily along its headstrong way with a bare legislative majority and a second-place popular vote finish.   Can you begin to imagine what the NDP might have felt the strength of its mandate to be and how strongly they might have bulled along if they'd won the majority the Liberals currently hold?


----------



## Canuck_25 (28 Apr 2005)

http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/labor07c.htm unemployment

http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/labor50c.htm 2001 earnings

http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/labor50_96c.htm 1996 earnings

http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/labor60a.htm Under Campbell, unions are forced to return to work or face imprisonment


----------



## Infanteer (28 Apr 2005)

You're saying Glen Clark, who was charged with dealing with organized crime figures and basically shamed out of government due to base incompetence, is better then Gordon Campbell?

 :

Campbell may not be the best out there, but you are using the wrong milestone to try and compare him to.


----------



## Canuck_25 (29 Apr 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> You're saying Glen Clark, who was charged with dealing with organized crime figures and basically shamed out of government due to base incompetence, is better then Gordon Campbell?
> 
> :
> 
> Campbell may not be the best out there, but you are using the wrong milestone to try and compare him to.



 Well, if I was moderator, i would correct your post, but i guess mods make mistakes  Glen Clark wasn't convicted. He was acquitted. So basically, not guilty.


----------



## muskrat89 (29 Apr 2005)

Thanks, Drummy - Yes, I knew Mr. Rector . He was a fine man, for sure


----------



## Infanteer (29 Apr 2005)

Canuck_25 said:
			
		

> Well, if I was moderator, i would correct your post, but i guess mods make mistakes  Glen Clark wasn't convicted. He was acquitted. So basically, not guilty.



Nice lecture, but if you take the time to actually read my post, you'll see that I said "charged", not "convicted" - Glen Clark was charged with Breach of Trust.  Although he managed to slither out of it (as I'm sure Chretien will), the fact that a case was built against him and brought to court (and that he was basically drubbed out of power) should indicate that his integrity is below par.

We haven't even got to the pathetic job he did running the province yet....


----------



## R031button (29 Apr 2005)

Canuck_25 said:
			
		

> Im actually working for the provincial NDP at the moment (watches for spears)
> 
> 
> I have to say, the Liberals have killed B.C.'s small communities. You city folk seem to get the best end with them
> ...



 As a British columbian from the Interior, I haven't noticed to much in the way of small comunity collapse. People don't get that the government can't force a corporation to stay (Tolko) in an unprofitable situation. Further more, none of the schools in the Thompson Nicola have been closed, and attendance is up. What's more, I went to school from 2000-2004 in BC, and if anything, my classes had been getting smaller since grade 8, not larger.

 Then again I am biassed, I'm going to a university now; not a university-college.


----------



## Troopasaurus (29 Apr 2005)

My class sizes have gone up from around 25 to about 35 now. I have seen the effects of budget cuts on our schools by seeing teachers fired because we cant afford to staff them while those class sizes rose. Our local hospital has been dropped from fully functioning with radiology, labs, OR's, Pediatrics etc... to a triage only with the majority of the hospital sitting empty while waiting lists increase. The nearest functioning hospital for me is about 40 minute drive for some of the 33,970 people of this city it is longer. then add on the typical hour long waiting room wait (took me 1 hour 42 minutes to get 4 stitches about 2 years ago). I think we will be seeing more people dying in the waiting rooms here if Campbell remains in power. There seems to be no good option in BC at the moment and it has become a battle for who is the lesser of two evils. lets not forget that Campbell was convicted of drinking and driving if you wish to bring up the legal card . Overall not impressed with Campbell and the Liberals would not be getting my vote. 

Oh and Button, your univercity would be cheaper without Campbell  after he removed the tuition freeze. Gordon Campbell campaigned on a promise to keep tuition fees frozen and increase the quality of education at BC colleges and universities. Since his election, Campbell has done the opposite. He has increased tuition fees by 70 percent for undergraduate programs at BC universities, and by as much as 150 percent at BC colleges and university-colleges. Students entering a four-year university program in 2001 would have expected to pay about $8,000 in tuition fees. Now those same students will pay $14,000. At university-colleges, the increases have been even worse. fees at Okanagan University College have more than double.


----------



## Canuck_25 (29 Apr 2005)

Ok, some of Gordan Campbells policies are very similar to the last regime. The opening of the north for oil extraction, diversifying B.C.'s economy, cuts to corporate tax, incentives for corporations to invest, ect.

 I did not approve of his immediate cuts to public services when he gained power. He managed to produce B.C.'s largest annual deficit at this time also, 3 billion.
After all this, the B.C. economy is another 7 billion dollars in debt, so much for good fiscal policy. He did though produce 1 annual budget surplus, 1 billion??? But he spent it all to win votes.

 The 6 dollar an hour minimum wage is bloody awefull. The lowest hourly wage across the country. Workers get exploited by it's 500 hour limit in labour jobs.

 The huge classrooms, the 15 cent fee on photo copying, lack of teachers, ect. In my school, almost all the teachers are baby booomers. The school district cant afford to hire younger teachers.

 The closing of mills across the province. Mr Campbell has done nothing but watch the forest industry decline. Raw log exports have doubled under his reign, supplying jobs down south. Mr Campbell has done nothing about the 27% tarrif on our lumber.

 Mr Campbell is forcing unions to return to work, avoiding settlments. Steelworkers, Ferries union, and CUPE were all forced to return to their jobs. That is bloody illegal in a democracy. People have the right to strike.

 Dont get me started on healthcare.......

 Unemployment in my area in about 11%. So, we do have a issue here with Mr Campbell. He cuts our services and tells us the economy is booming. Yes it might be booming in the lower mainland and up North, but it's dead here.


----------



## Sub_Guy (29 Apr 2005)

Canuck_25 said:
			
		

> Ok, some of Gordan Campbells policies are very similar to the last regime. The opening of the north for oil extraction, diversifying B.C.'s economy, cuts to corporate tax, incentives for corporations to invest, ect.
> 
> The closing of mills across the province. Mr Campbell has done nothing but watch the forest industry decline. Raw log exports have doubled under his reign, supplying jobs down south. Mr Campbell has done nothing about the 27% tarrif on our lumber.
> 
> Mr Campbell is forcing unions to return to work, avoiding settlments. Steelworkers, Ferries union, and CUPE were all forced to return to their jobs. That is bloody illegal in a democracy. People have the right to strike.




Companies should also have the right to hire replacement workers if they strike, striking workers who block highways should be arrested on the spot.  You should have the right to strike, stand on the side of the road with your signs, I know that there are other people out there who would love to take your job.. Unions are wast of time and money, and is it just me or are unionized workers lazy.....FMF workers...yeah they know how to do it....

The Federal government hasn't done enough for our lumber, but this is mostly a Federal issue, so if the PM won't get tough, then what is Mr. Campbell supposed to do?  

Times do change, good thing the blacksmiths weren't unionized, or else we would see blacksmiths shops all over the place.  You can force a company to stay in a community when they aren't making money, yeah it sucks but thats life.

Healthcare lists are bound to get longer, as people are living longer, and the baby boomers are getting up there all causing longer lists.... I think two tier healthcare would be ideal, we keep the wonderful system we have now (30th in the world) and start private healthcare, which the government can't get involved in, it would be funded by the people who use it.  IT would only work if the government would keep its hands out.  

$6 minimum wage is lame, I was making that when I was in High School early 90's at the Canex in Petawawa.   <--- How the fcuk can anyone live on that?  That money barely got me enough money to get drunk at the river!


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (29 Apr 2005)

Canuck_25 said:
			
		

> http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/labor07c.htm unemployment
> 
> http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/labor50c.htm 2001 earnings
> 
> ...



Do you understand what you've shown here?

Average earnings were slightly higher than the national average because many of the unemployed left the province, which also (somewhat) understated the Unemployment Rate: I don't know what you were doing, but I was one of the few to move here during the 90's (net migration was actually negative for a few years).  I still see the effects in my job every day (I finance real estate): developers are having trouble finding contractors, because so many moved and resettled in Alberta (which also explains why housing prices have gone up so much (limited supply of labour)).

If you think that _increasing _the numbers of days lost per worker is a good thing, you should not be allowed to go anywhere near a business (or an economoy).


----------



## Canuck_25 (29 Apr 2005)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> Do you understand what you've shown here?
> 
> Average earnings were slightly higher than the national average because many of the unemployed left the province, which also (somewhat) understated the Unemployment Rate: I don't know what you were doing, but I was one of the few to move here during the 90's (net migration was actually negative for a few years).   I still see the effects in my job every day (I finance real estate): developers are having trouble finding contractors, because so many moved and resettled in Alberta (which also explains why housing prices have gone up so much (limited supply of labour)).
> 
> If you think that _increasing _the numbers of days lost per worker is a good thing, you should not be allowed to go anywhere near a business (or an economoy).



 Funny, the link that you showed me (the BCBC) showed that during the 90's, British Columbia had a large population increase. That sort of contradicts what you just stated

 You just manipulated what i said. The goverment is simply avoiding the issue. There will be a Steelworkers strike next year in the province when the 2 sides discuss the next contract, which is expected to see a 30% cut in wages. Good luck trying to get people to recieve a 30% cut in wages.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (29 Apr 2005)

Canuck_25 said:
			
		

> Funny, the link that you showed me (the BCBC) showed that during the 90's, British Columbia had a large population increase. That sort of contradicts what you just stated



No, we had a moderate increase driven by purely by immigration: inter-provincial migration was flat or negative.  This means that 'Canada' was attracting workers, but they then were leaving British Columbia.  Immigration was the ONLY thing that kept this province going during the Harcourt/Clark years.  I've been to the CMHC conferences every year since 1996: I'm not making this up (it's my job to know).




> You just manipulated what i said. The goverment is simply avoiding the issue. There will be a Steelworkers strike next year in the province when the 2 sides discuss the next contract, which is expected to see a 30% cut in wages. Good luck trying to get people to recieve a 30% cut in wages.



No, I didn't: you misinterpreted (or are purposefully misrepresenting) the data: I defy you to ask anyone in the real estate industry in British Columbia to deny the massive migration of contractors to Alberta (Calgary particularly) in the 1990's.

Do you think that it's possible that Steelworkers are overpaid (i.e., hiding behind labour law to keep their wages artificially high to the detriment of all of the rest of us)?  Oh wait - you're working for the NDP: it's simply not possible for someone to be overpaid unless they are a senior executive of some type, right?


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Apr 2005)

I'm interested to hear of examples of teacher layoffs.  I know that school closures have been an issue, but the people raising the issue won't tell you that the cause is demographic.  School districts would save money by hiring younger teachers (lower on the pay scales).  The problems with education and conditions in the schools originate with the language that had crept into contracts over previous governments.

People don't die in waiting rooms because of cutbacks; people die in waiting rooms because of bad triage decisions.  The people piling up in waiting rooms are the ones there for their "owies" and discomforts for whom there are fewer resources.  Demand outstripping reasonable supply for what is often mistaken as "free".  Imagine that.

Campbell didn't raise tuitions.  That's not in his power.  The BC government can freeze and unfreeze tuitions, just as it can do to ICBC premiums.  That is all.  Read Paul Wells's columns and articles on tuition policy.  His analysis will surprise you, but if you understand it and agree with the importance of quality and availability, you should find yourself compelled to agree that tuition fees should further increase.

I hear and read a lot of bitching about raw log exports.  Why are none of the complainers starting businesses to provide finished lumber and other products?  Is it the role of government to run mills and enterprises to provide furniture, prefab framing, etc?

We have already discussed minimum wages here.  I think minimum wage advocates who actually earn low wages are fools but won't stand in their way if they wish to price themselves out of a job.  I think minimum wage advocates who don't actually earn low wages should have to suffer the ill effects of their ideals, but they don't.

People have the right to strike.  Taxpayers have the right to services provided at the lowest possible cost.  Think about that for while.


----------



## Infanteer (29 Apr 2005)

As usual, excellent post Brad.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Campbell didn't raise tuitions.   That's not in his power.   The BC government can freeze and unfreeze tuitions, just as it can do to ICBC premiums.   That is all.   Read Paul Wells's columns and articles on tuition policy.   His analysis will surprise you, but if you understand it and agree with the importance of quality and availability, you should find yourself compelled to agree that tuition fees should further increase.



Roger that.  I paid for my university - there was a difference between the costs of my first and last year, but so what; it was still within reason considering that university is an investment.  Most of my expenses were covered by, wonder of wonders, working.  Yes folks, nothing's free.

As well, during my university years I took part in Rowing program that was offered - when we took our uniforms and boats down to compete with teams from the US, the difference in funding was starkly apparent considering these were smaller colleges and we were from one of Canada's largest universities.  The program was excellent (I have no doubt that it helped shaped teamwork and how I viewed it in the Army) and two teammates I knew went on to Athens for the Olympics, but the funding was low.  Now, this is same across the board for university funding - as I said earlier, it's an investment; you want to attract the top faculty and provide first rate facilities for people to study in, you gotta pay the bucks.

My cousin went to university in the States, and my bills were no where close to hers, so I don't get what all the whining is about.



> I hear and read a lot of bitching about raw log exports.   Why are none of the complainers starting businesses to provide finished lumber and other products?   Is it the role of government to run mills and enterprises to provide furniture, prefab framing, etc?



It's easier to bitch and point fingers then take the entrepreneurial risk, I guess.... 



> We have already discussed minimum wages here.   I think minimum wage advocates who actually earn low wages are fools but won't stand in their way if they wish to price themselves out of a job.   I think minimum wage advocates who don't actually earn low wages should have to suffer the ill effects of their ideals, but they don't.



The 6 Dollar wage that Mr Canuck raised is a training wage - red herring.  My family business doesn't pay anybody 6 bucks an hour.

That being said, minimum wages seem to be indicative of unproductive economies - if the economy was hot, wouldn't workers be in demand?  Isn't it a coincidence that while BC's economy was in the shitter with the NDP at the helm, we were second only to Nunavet in minimum wage levels.



> People have the right to strike.   Taxpayers have the right to services provided at the lowest possible cost.   Think about that for while.



Thank you.

I would also add that taxpayers also have the right to access medical services without being hounded or held ransom by what amounts to a bunch of overpaid people in entry-level (re: unskilled) positions.  Taking a terminally ill family member to the hospital during the HEU strike, I didn't appreciate the militant stance these goons were taking.


----------



## redleafjumper (30 Apr 2005)

"Companies should also have the right to hire replacement workers if they strike, striking workers who block highways should be arrested on the spot.  You should have the right to strike, stand on the side of the road with your signs, I know that there are other people out there who would love to take your job.. Unions are wast of time and money, and is it just me or are unionized workers lazy.....FMF workers...yeah they know how to do it...."

I have one simple response to that comment - bad management makes a strong union.  I was never a big union person and thought much the same way until I saw why unions are necessary in many work environments and I now work in one.  Favoritism, discrimination on many grounds, unfair and unrealistic working conditions, pushing the envelope on workplace safety.  Unions? Well if you like weekends, realize that unions brought them to you, as well as such wonders as the minimum wage.


"I'm interested to hear of examples of teacher layoffs.  I know that school closures have been an issue, but the people raising the issue won't tell you that the cause is demographic.  School districts would save money by hiring younger teachers (lower on the pay scales).  The problems with education and conditions in the schools originate with the language that had crept into contracts over previous governments."

No, you are wrong about contracts.  As someone who has been dealing with the fallout of the 22 layoff notices that were given to faculty members at my community college I can categorically say that these layoffs have nothing to do with contract language and everything to do with short-sighted management decisions about where to spend money.  Chronic underfunding by successive governments (not just the present one) is also a serious problem for public post-secondary education and a contributing factor to poor management decisions.  In the past contract period management wages have increased an average of 25% (or higher at some institutions) while faculty salaries have remained much lower while the gap between them grows.  In addition, more administrators have been getting hired to manage fewer faculty; at my place ten more in the past three years through periods of successive layoffs.  These layoffs are coupled with severe program cuts, especially to technologies, likely due to the high cost of a tech FTE (Full-time equivalent). Tuitions go up, parking fees increase, the variety of course and program offerings are limited and the administrators still haven't figured out why there are fewer student enrollments. 

I am one voter who will be looking long and hard at my ballot on May 17.


----------



## DJ (30 Apr 2005)

In reference to the University tuition increases I must admit that they hurt.  My first year fees were just over $260/course and now they're above $400 (two years later).  However, the increases were needed.  The university was crumbling due to increased enrollment and decreasing government post-secondary expenditure.  Tuition freezes don't help students; they handicap the universities and force them to compensate for the lack of finances by limiting programs.  Would I like a cheap degree?  Of course!  But I would rather have a quality degree that I, and future employers, will actually respect in the future.  

DJ


----------



## redleafjumper (30 Apr 2005)

Tuition fees by themselves do not provide a quality degree.  What gives one a quality education is quality instruction, accredited quality programming, transferability in the case of colleges and, in the case of universities, a reputation for excellent research.  What goes hand-in-hand with those four elements is a commitment of the institution to recruit and retain well-educated faculty.  Those elements build the respect necessary to give an institution a good reputation.  It is more important for an institution to offer a broad choice of programs  than it is to cut the expensive ones and jack up tuition anyway.  At some point the cost gets beyond what people can afford to pay by working while going to school , and in many cases supporting a family.   Money invested in education is always returned to the economy, but it seems many of the decision makers do not think in the long term; they only look at the annual budget.

Unfortunately, in a province where anyone can hang out a shingle as a private provider of education the reputation of all educators suffers.  What seems to be important nowadays is to get some sort of fast certificate in order to get into a job market where advancement will be limited.  The longer one stays in school the better their job will be, even if it can take some time and experience to get that job.


----------



## DJ (30 Apr 2005)

I agree with your assessment about tuition fees no being the measure of the quality of a degree , however, the four elements and the well-educated faculty are hard to maintain if funding per student decreases for many consecutive years.  It wasn't only the expensive programs that were suffering; the more basic courses were feeling the effects of less professors/student, crammed rooms, less sections and so on.  What would be ideal is for the government to make the investment and properly fund post secondary.  Until that happens though, I'd rather pay higher fees for services than have a tuition freeze and find my options extremely limited.  

DJ


----------



## redleafjumper (1 May 2005)

If paying more fees actually led to more options, I'd be in full agreement.  The reality is that tuition fees have gone up, but choices have become more limited.  Increased tution fees have not gone to increasing options for students.  From the Public Bodies Documents (available at each institution's library - probably in the archives) one might surmise that any gains from increased tuition revenue have gone to substantially increase the salaries of senior administrators.


----------



## TCBF (1 May 2005)

Our whole society (among others) is going that way.  I think if we had private universities in Canada, they could easily compete with the government funded ones.


----------



## redleafjumper (1 May 2005)

What would private universities in this country compete for?  Faculty?  My experience shows me that private colleges follow a model of "choose, use, abuse, and refuse" when temporarily hiring faculty.  Usually they hire recent graduates with minimal qualifications, offer to pay them what seems to be the huge sum of maybe $20.00 for a teaching hour and then suck their blood until the private college no longer needs their expertise, or else the faculty member gets wise that "gee whiz, marking and prep takes up a lot of time that I'm not paid for..." and goes back to driving taxi if they can't find a job in their field of expertise.  Students?  Credibility is an issue for most students and I don't see that the private institutions have that credibility for anything but short courses that give the student a ticket to a low paying mid-skill job.  

There is certainly no academic credibility without tenure (colleges lack tenure so generally have much stronger unions to help protect the faculty members) and academic freedom.   Research Grants? Seems silly for government to give grants to private universities when they are paying for the public ones.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (1 May 2005)

redleafjumper said:
			
		

> What would private universities in this country compete for?  Faculty?  My experience shows me that private colleges follow a model of "choose, use, abuse, and refuse" when temporarily hiring faculty.  Usually they hire recent graduates with minimal qualifications, offer to pay them what seems to be the huge sum of maybe $20.00 for a teaching hour and then suck their blood until the private college no longer needs their expertise, or else the faculty member gets wise that "gee whiz, marking and prep takes up a lot of time that I'm not paid for..." and goes back to driving taxi if they can't find a job in their field of expertise.  Students?  Credibility is an issue for most students and I don't see that the private institutions have that credibility for anything but short courses that give the student a ticket to a low paying mid-skill job.
> 
> There is certainly no academic credibility without tenure (colleges lack tenure so generally have much stronger unions to help protect the faculty members) and academic freedom.   Research Grants? Seems silly for government to give grants to private universities when they are paying for the public ones.



Which is why the faculty of Canadian Universities are rated sooo much higher than the US, right?   :-\


----------



## Infanteer (1 May 2005)

redleafjumper said:
			
		

> Credibility is an issue for most students and I don't see that the private institutions have that credibility for anything but short courses that give the student a ticket to a low paying mid-skill job.



So, is this how Harvard managed to get rated as the top university in the world - short courses and low paying mid-skill jobs?


----------



## redleafjumper (1 May 2005)

I understood that we were talking about BC politics and Canadian universities and colleges, not American ones.  My comment about private institutions relates to the great influx of private colleges that we have now in BC.  Our educational system here is quite different from the American model, and comparisons as to which is "better" would be complex.  What are the sources for the apparent claims that: 

          a.  American faculty are rated higher than Canadian Faculty (Is this college or university faculty - realize that colleges are defined differently in each province let alone from the US to Canada - some colleges offer purely vocational training, some emphasize University Transfer, others are combinations)

         b.  Harvard is rated the top university in the world - I have one colleague who is an Oxford PhD who might differ with that claim and yet another who holds a PhD from Yale who would also debate it.

And incidentally, the super high tuitions in those private American universities is but one reason why many Americans choose to have their children educated in Canadian universities.  Other reasons include limited access to some universities, content of courses and programs reputation of the university or college and yes, excellence in teaching.


----------



## Infanteer (1 May 2005)

redleafjumper said:
			
		

> I understood that we were talking about BC politics and Canadian universities and colleges, not American ones.   My comment about private institutions relates to the great influx of private colleges that we have now in BC.



We have Private Colleges in BC?  You mean like Sprott Shaw and all those other rinky dink ones?  Ok, but I don't think those were what were being debated about with regards to university tuition.


----------



## DJ (1 May 2005)

redleafjumper said:
			
		

> If paying more fees actually led to more options, I'd be in full agreement.  The reality is that tuition fees have gone up, but choices have become more limited.  Increased tution fees have not gone to increasing options for students.  From the Public Bodies Documents (available at each institution's library - probably in the archives) one might surmise that any gains from increased tuition revenue have gone to substantially increase the salaries of senior administrators.


  

I know for a fact that admin pay has been increasing.  After our first 30% increase President Piper 'coincidently' got a 30% payraise.  Of course I wasn't too pleased at this but when one looks into her record it is justifiable.  She has brought a huge increase in grant funding (I don't have the exact amount on me, I believe the student newspaper reported to say the increase was 3X).  This alone outweighs any negative impact her (deserved) raise gave her.  If paying more fees actually led to more options, I'd be ecstatic.  The previous tuition freeze crippled the university and I wouldn't expect the university to instantly recuperate.  The way I see it, I'm not paying more $ for more options; I'm paying more to maintain the options I have.  

As for private universities, I see no place for them in society. Knowledge should not be privatized.  The dissemination of information is for benefit of society.  I'm an advocate of free university (and I'm not just being a selfish student--I'm practically done and all paid up).  I believe that The Netherlands and Ireland have free post-secondary, and their economies are booming because they have the qualified personnel to satisfy the demands of their knowledge-based economies. Elementary and secondary school were not always free.  As economies advanced, societies felt it suitable to educate citizens accordingly so as to ensure competitiveness.  In the increasingly globalized world in which a 'knowledge economy' is prevalent, raising the ceiling of free education is going to be a factor in future competition. I would not mind my taxes subsidizing education as a means of ensuring that there will be enough doctors in the future when I need one.  

Access is probably one of the largest problems facing universities in BC.  Students with an 85% are not getting in.  This is because of the funding shortfall (read:  less govt investment and tuition freeze).  It would be even worse if universities weren't admitting more students than they're funded for, (which they do to try to keep the enrollment average from sky-rocketing further).  I would like to see a stat of how many qualified students we're actually losing because of this. 


DJ


----------



## Infanteer (1 May 2005)

DJ said:
			
		

> As for private universities, I see no place for them in society. Knowledge should not be privatized.



That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.  Knowledge and learning are nothing more then going out and listening/reading/pondering what others have to say.  If someone wishes to charge admission and others are willing to pay, then all the power to them.

Private universities have been around since Plato opened the _Akademia_.


----------



## DJ (1 May 2005)

I listen/read/ponder what others have to say (such as yourself) on the internet, yet it is not privatized.  I don't see absolute harm in private schools but I do think that society as a whole benefits more when information is not privatized.  Understandably, being able to profit from ideas is necessary for innovation but where does the profiteering stop?  I'm reminded of one of the many arguments in global North/South relations.  Property rights on medication are fiercely defended by the pharmaceutical companies.  People who can not afford these designer meds are dying while their governments are legally unable to offer generic substitutes.  This is what I think of when I say that knowledge should not be privatized and why there are areas, such as health care and education, where the government should ensure that the public system is top-notch.  I don't want to believe that modern society should be characterized as a system in which the rich are able to claim a monopoly on knowledge while those who are unable (not unwilling) to pay are cast aside.  

DJ


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (1 May 2005)

DJ said:
			
		

> I listen/read/ponder what others have to say (such as yourself) on the internet, yet it is not privatized.



REALLY?  Then how come I'm paying for it?


----------



## Zartan (1 May 2005)

Are you sure the minimum wage in B.C. is $6 - I'm rather sure it is $8, for 2nd or third highest in the country. Regardless, $6 minimum wage is still higher than Alberta's ($5.90), and at par with Newfoundland and Labrador, not that it's anything to be proud of. Unemployment Rates for April, 2005: NL=15%(ish); BC=7%(at par with the Canadian average). Furthermore, wasn't the BC budget surplus more along the lines of $2B? I heard (from the Calgary Herald Business section) that with federal transfer payments, BC's budget surplus approached said figure. Regardless, they are still doing better than under the NDP, but of course that can be affected by so many external factors that you would need awhile to compose an effective study to determine whether Gordon Campbell is responsible for most of it.


----------



## redleafjumper (2 May 2005)

Yes the "training wage" in BC is six bucks - the Canadian Federation of Students has a campaign against it called "Six Bucks Sucks". Zartan makes some good points.  The NDP caused a lot of trouble for British Columbians - the failure to log Tweedsmuir Park in the early stages of the pine beetle epidemic, the grizzly bear hunting ban, the fast ferry fiasco, the questions raised by Clark's patio and so on.  It is not clear (to me)that the liberals are any better.   There are major problems with the BC political system and the two dominant parties are not really helping by their extreme swings of the pendulum.  I should point out that the last party to make dramatic increases to funding in the areas of public education and health care was the last government of the Social Credit under Bill Vander Zalm.  
It is also worthwhile to note that sometimes private education works well for some applications; however there are limitations.  I have worked in both systems for many years and I have found that there are advantages and disadvantages to both, I tend to prefer public education for academic purposes because I  see the results while I am cognisant of the administrative abuses.  The private institutions that I am referring to are exactly those mushroom pop-ups like Sprott Shaw. There are many others but they mostly follow the same trend - choose, use, abuse, and then refuse (to rehire).


----------



## Infanteer (2 May 2005)

redleafjumper said:
			
		

> The private institutions that I am referring to are exactly those mushroom pop-ups like Sprott Shaw. There are many others but they mostly follow the same trend - choose, use, abuse, and then refuse (to rehire).



Perhaps this is a problem in the accreditation process?  I remember seeing a row of "colleges" lined up on second story offices in Richmond BC - I'm convinced that they were conduits for immigrants or Al-Qaeda sleeper cells.  Now, maybe Sprott Shaw and Co. aren't at that level, but they never struck me as anything different then those late night infomercials that offer diplomas in accounting, marketing, and private investigations.  I'm not too familiar with the process of educational accreditation, but perhaps it should hone in on places that plan on become institutions of learning rather then printing houses for diplomas.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 May 2005)

redleafjumper said:
			
		

> ...
> The private institutions that I am referring to are exactly those mushroom pop-ups like Sprott Shaw.



You mean the Sprott-Shaw colleges which have been in business for over 100 years - longer than the Canadian Navy?  Some _pop-up_; some _mushroom_.

Public schools have, traditionally, done a lousy job at vocational training - they did 100+ years ago, which is why Messers Sprott and Shaw became rich doing what the public sector could not (actually would not) do.  The public schools still manage to avoid doing what's needed for the trades (including the admin support trades) - which is why Sprott-Shaw and others are still in business.

Of course there are a bunch of unscrupulous fly-by-night operators and crooks and people smugglers, too, out there.  But, the big, important *But*, is that there are a bunch of people doing what the public sector fails to do, over and over and over again.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 May 2005)

>No, you are wrong about contracts

No, I am _right_ about _teacher_ (as in, not post-secondary) contracts.  When contract language dictates how the business will be structured and run, it has crossed the line.

A sense of entitlement and a risk-intolerant membership can also make for a strong union irrespective of the abilities of the management team.

Private adult education institutions - I do not choose to confuse them with the popular meaning of universities or colleges as  understood in BC - are entirely reliant on their graduates for their reputations.  No one will hire the graduates on the basis of their qualifications if the graduates are thought to be insufficiently prepared.  I doubt the prospective employers care one whit about the facilities or the credentials of the faculty.

I imagine most people who believe in social justice should support higher tuitions - why should those who are already privileged continue to increase their lock on privilege at the expense of public subsidy?  Charge higher tuitions, and provide more public funding assistance to the needy and deserving.  If the argument is that educating more people will enable them to obtain better employment, larger paycheques, and larger income tax payments, then they should have no problem carrying and paying debt as easily as they pay income taxes.  What is socially just is that people who don't have a shot at the brass ring shouldn't have to pay income taxes to subsidize those who do.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (2 May 2005)

Zartan said:
			
		

> Are you sure the minimum wage in B.C. is $6 - I'm rather sure it is $8, for 2nd or third highest in the country. Regardless, $6 minimum wage is still higher than Alberta's ($5.90), and at par with Newfoundland and Labrador, not that it's anything to be proud of.



Well, I'm sure be pleased to learn that Cuba is the pre-eminent emerging economic powerhouse:



> CUBA: Minimum wage doubles
> 
> On April 21, Cuban President Fidel Castro announced an increase in the minimum wage to 225 pesos (US$9.40) a month, up from 100 pesos now. The increase will affect 1,657,191 workers, most of them working in agriculture, the service sector, the food industry, or working as auxiliary staff in hospitals and schools. The increase will cost the state 1.6 billion pesos, and raise the nation's average wage from 282 pesos to 300 pesos a year. At the end of March, Castro announced big increases in pension payments.


 http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/625/625p13g.htm

What Canada really needs is an _economic literacy_ campaign ...


----------



## sdimock (5 May 2005)

As I recall (and it's been a few years, finished in 89) it wasn't tuition and books that was the biggest cost of post secondary education, it was food and shelter that rang up the bills.


----------



## Infanteer (5 May 2005)

sdimock said:
			
		

> As I recall (and it's been a few years, finished in 89) it wasn't tuition and books that was the biggest cost of post secondary education, it was food and shelter that rang up the bills.



Makes sense - and one can pay for room and board the way every other Average Joe does, by working.


----------

