Main menu:

History of RPE Thought

Posts by Tag

RSS New from the CCPA

  • A critical look at BC’s new tax breaks and subsidies for LNG May 7, 2019
    The BC government has offered much more to the LNG industry than the previous government. Read the report by senior economist Marc Lee.  
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • The 2019 living wage for Metro Vancouver April 30, 2019
    The 2019 living wage for Metro Vancouver is $19.50/hour. This is the amount needed for a family of four with each of two parents working full-time at this hourly rate to pay for necessities, support the healthy development of their children, escape severe financial stress and participate in the social, civic and cultural lives of […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Time to regulate gas prices in BC and stop industry gouging April 29, 2019
    Drivers in Metro Vancouver are reeling from record high gas prices, and many commentators are blaming taxes. But it’s not taxes causing pain at the pump — it’s industry gouging. Our latest research shows that gas prices have gone up by 55 cents per litre since 2016 — and the vast majority of that increase […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • CCPA welcomes Randy Robinson as new Ontario Director March 27, 2019
    The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives is pleased to announce the appointment of Randy Robinson as the new Director of our Ontario Office.  Randy’s areas of expertise include public sector finance, the gendered rise of precarious work, neoliberalism, and labour rights. He has extensive experience in communications and research, and has been engaged in Ontario’s […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • 2019 Federal Budget Analysis February 27, 2019
    Watch this space for response and analysis of the federal budget from CCPA staff and our Alternative Federal Budget partners. More information will be added as it is available. Commentary and Analysis  Aim high, spend low: Federal budget 2019 by David MacDonald (CCPA) Budget 2019 fiddles while climate crisis looms by Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood (CCPA) Budget hints at priorities for upcoming […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Progressive Bloggers


Recent Blog Posts

Posts by Author

Recent Blog Comments

The Progressive Economics Forum

Bank Economist Proposes Higher Tuition Fees

A article posted last night discusses a recent report on post-secondary education in Nova Scotia.  The report itself, released yesterday, was written by BMO’s former Chief Economist, Tim O’Neill. 

According to the article, O’Neill’s report calls for “complete deregulation of tuition fees” in Nova Scotia.  Moreover:

He believes that higher tuitions are more equitable because they force students, who are disproportionately from the upper strata, to bear a greater burden of the university cost. Under the current system, he argues, these students are subsidized by poorer taxpayers whose children do not attend university.

(O’Neill appears to be under the impression that Canada does not have a progressive taxation system.)

According to the article, O’Neill also argues that some of the increased revenue resulting from higher tuition under his plan should then be allocated towards financial assistance to low-income students. 

(I have blogged about the shortcomings of such targeted measures before.)

Also noteworthy, the article quotes Nova Scotia’s NDP premier, in response to the report’s recommendations, as saying that “everything is on the table.” 

I would like to note that, since the 1970s, university operating revenue from government grants has decreased very substantially in Canada.  Moreover, in the past two decades, the ratio of full-time students to full-time faculty in Canada has increased significantly for both colleges and universities.  In light of these developments, it isn’t clear to me why more “experts” don’t point the finger at senior levels of government and recommend increased funding, rather than pick on students.

UPDATE – A great op-ed written by the president of the Association of Nova Scotia University Teachers was published in the Chronicle Herald on October 1.

Enjoy and share:


Comment from Travis Fast
Time: September 19, 2010, 10:17 am

I wonder which private institutions stand to gain the most from the provision of deregulated tuition fees?

We need to start a campaign to get student loans (re)treated as any other loans vis-a-vis bankruptcy legislation. As it stands student loan debt is not eligible until 10 years after it issuance.

Comment from Iglika Ivanova
Time: September 20, 2010, 11:25 am

This kind of logic — the lower-income families don’t send their kids to university so we should just charge more — completely misses the point. If people with the right skills are not getting higher education because of their low socioeconomic background, then Canada is not making the optimal education investment.

There are social benefits to education above and beyond the private benefits of higher salaries that graduates can expect. There is also considerable uncertainty about individual outcomes, which may affect the investment decision of students. There are credit constraints. All of these are potential market failures and constitute good reasons for government to get involved in higher education.

Subsidizing tuition is one important contribution governments can make, but there are other interventions needed if we are to take full advantage of Canada’s people potential. Like investing in early learning for all kids.

Comment from Travis Fast
Time: September 20, 2010, 1:25 pm

I am still trying to figure out how you can target low income post secondary students. By definition students have low incomes. And I am also trying to figure out how young adults from rich homes can force their parents to fund their education? After the age of majority parents have no legal obligation to take care of their off-spring. BC tried means tested student loans and parents just wrote letters saying they refused to support their children. No upper middle class parents are probably smart enough to write such a letter in order to allow their offspring to access targeted subsdidies.

Comment from Purple Library Guy
Time: September 20, 2010, 7:53 pm

Funny how up until recently, the game was to swear up and down that high tuitions were *not* restricting the ability of lower income would-be students to access university. Now they do, but rather than lower the fees apparently we’re supposed to accept class-divided access and accentuate it . . . in the name of making the rich pay! That’s some pretty bare-faced gall.
Also pretty bare-faced gall in admitting that high tuition fees block access for lower-income students, but to be confident that the stenographic press won’t ask whether even higher ones shouldn’t be expected to make the problem worse. It’s amazing what can pass for an argument when the prevailing atmosphere says you never question what rich people tell us.

Write a comment

Related articles