Veerkamp offered his opinion that banks only got into student loans, in 1995, as a way to gain access toa youth market that could insure life-long customers in the future, and the government could ditch responsibili- ty for the head-ache of the recollection program. "The issue for the banks is they're not interested in helping students out; they're not interested in education policy; they're not interested in national development. . . what they're interested in is at the bottom line, are they mak- ing as much money with students as they could if they invested overseas in an oil company... " (Veerkamp, Student Debt 101) The banks’ tattle-telling of the ‘dead-beat student’, shirking from responsibility of loan repayment is pure propaganda. When the federal government was collecting the loans, from 1964 to 1996, 93% of stu- dent loans were repaid in full. While, according to a Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation report, Industry Canada distributed over $11 billion, between 1982-1997, in grants and loans to corporations, with only 15% of those loans having been repaid to date. (Student Debt 101) There is also a new policy of 'De-esignation’ on the way. This would be another avenue for banks to control academic policy --- institutions that have gradu- ated students with high default rates on their student loans, will no longer be able to receive students holding a federal student loan. This is leading to more and more control of social spending, and government policy, by private, multinational businesses, like banks. The federal government has increasingly been under pressure by big business and banks to cut back on social spending in order to allow for greater privati- zation. This is in line with economic policy as profligat- ed by the Internation Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank. Under trade liberalization agreements like NAFTA, and through trade bodies like the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), health care, education, and social programs could be open for the highest bidder. We can already see some of this influence through the infiltration of corporate-sponsored television in the classrooms, and cash-strapped campuses making exclu- sive soft-drink deals. Trade analysts are concerned that, under GATS rules, foreign-owned education suppliers would have to be permitted the right to set up a presence in Canada, and our governments would be barred from requiring any local involvment in hiring, ownership or gover- nance. Governments would lose the ability to "discrim- inate", even incidentally, against foreign institutions in Canada in terms of authorizing degree-granting author- ity, recognizing foreign degrees or diplomas, or even in providing grants or loans. Control of curriculum materi- als and curriculum development could also be threat- ened. (College Institute Educators’ Association of BC "Profile", January 2000, p.3) The only way out is for increased grassroots educating, organizing, and demanding. Students’ collec- tive voice can be strong and loud. And if their voices are joined by all others affected by the globalization of free trade (basically. . . well. . . everyone) then a [rlevo- lution will take place! Lobbying the federal government is not enough in an era where economic policy is set by multi-national corporations, and banks. And maybe, with support tens-of-thousands strong (like in Seattle), a national Strike 2001 will bring about the restructuring our education system needs for the next millennium, heads engaged in clear, critical thought. The reality is that stu- dents are graduating from college or universi- ty and the juicy high paying jobs don’t exist. Another reality is that most of the students who have trouble mak- ing their loan payments are women. Yet another reality is that people need a post-secondary education today to enter the workforce. 13 @ photo by Natasha Creed \Veerkamp offered his opinion that banks only got into student loans, in 1995, as a way to gain access to a youth market that could insure life-long customers in the future, and the government could ditch responsibil ty for the head-ache of the recollection program. “The issue for the banks jis they're not interested in helping students out; they're not interested in education policy; they're not interested in national development. . . what they're interested in is at the bottom line, are they mak- ing as much money with students as they could if they invested overseas in an oil company..." (Veerkamp, Student Debt 101) The banks’ tattle-telling of the ‘dead-beat student’, shirking from responsibility of loan repayment is pure propaganda. When the federal government was collecting the loans, from 1964 to 1996, 93% of stu- dent loans were repaid in full. While, according to a Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation report, Industry Canada distributed over $11 billion, between 1982-1997, in grants and loans to corporations, with only 15% of those loans having been repaid to date. (Student Debt 101) There is also a new policy of ‘De-esignation on the way. This would be another avenue for banks to control academic policy --- institutions that have gradu- ated students with high default rates on their student loans, will no longer be able to receive students holding a federal student loan. This is leading to more and more control of social spending, and government policy, by private, multinational businesses, like banks. The federal government has increasingly been under pressure by big business and banks to cut back ‘on social spending in order to allow for greater privati- zation. This is in line with economic policy as profligat- ed by the Internation Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank. Under trade liberalization agreements like NAFTA, and through trade bodies like the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), health care, education, and social programs could be open for the highest bidder. We can already see some of this influence through the infiltration of corporate-sponsored television in the classrooms, and cash-strapped campuses making exclu- sive soft-drink deals. Trade analysts are concerned that, under GATS rules, foreign-owned education suppliers would have to be permitted the right to set up a presence in Canada, and our governments would be barred from requiring any local involvment in hiring, ownership or gover- nance. Governments would lose the abilty to." discrim- inate”, even incidentally, against foreign institutions in Canada in terms of authorizing degree-granting author- ity, recognizing foreign degrees or diplomas, or even in providing grants or loans. Control of curriculum materi- als and curriculum development could also be threat- ened. (College Institute Educators’ Association of BC “Profile”, January 2000, p.3) The only way out is for increased grassroots educating, organizing, and demanding. Students’ collec- tive voice can be strong and loud. And if their voices are joined by all others affected by the globalization of free trade (basically. .. well. .. everyone) then a [rlevo- lution will take place! Lobbying the federal government is not enough in an era where economic policy is set by multi-national corporations, and banks. And maybe, with support tens-of-thousands strong (like in Seattle), a national Strike 2001 will bring about the restructuring ‘our education system needs for the next millennium, heads engaged in clear, critical thought. The reality is that stu- dents are graduating from college or universi- ty and the juicy high paying jobs don’t exist. Another reality is that most of the students who have trouble mak- ing their loan payments are women. Yet another reality is that people need a post-secondary education today to enter the workforce. 12 _@