Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs,
Science and Technology
Subcommittee on Post-Secondary education
Issue 5 - Evidence - Afternoon sitting
VANCOUVER, Monday, February 10, 1997
The Subcommittee on Post-Secondary education of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, met this day at 2:00 p.m. to continue its inquiry into the state of Post-Secondary education in Canada.
Senator M. Lorne Bonnell (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, our next witness is Ms Kathryn Barker, Ph.D., preseident of FuturEd Associates.
Perhaps members of the committee would introduce themselves so Ms Barker and others will know who is present.
Senator Forest: I am Jean Forest from Edmonton, Alberta, a former Manitoban who spends a lot of time in British Columbia these days because we have children and grandchildren here. I have had a long-time interest in EDUCATION. I am a former teacher and school trustee. I was a senator, governor and chancellor at the University of Alberta. I have also been involved in the hospitality industry and a director of Northern Transportation and Canadian National.
I am delighted to be here to hear all about Post-Secondary education
Senator Perrault: My name is Ray Perrault. I am a former Leader of the Government in the Senate. I have been elected to both the House of Commons and the B.C. Legislature.
Senator Andreychuk: I am Senator Raynell Andreychuk from Saskatchewan.
Senator Carney: I am Pat Carney from British Columbia. For this leg of the committee hearings I am replacing Senator Deware who is unable to be here. I am glad to have this opportunity because, before I went into politics, I was project manager of the B.C. Distance EDUCATION Planning Group, which led to the establishment of the Open Learning Institute and the Knowledge Network.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: I am a senator from Quebec. I have always had a great interest in EDUCATION. For a number of years I taught sociology and social work at the University of Montreal. For a number of years I was chairman of the largest school board in Canada which had 230,000 students in those days. I was also Minister of Health. Formerly resources were readily available for both EDUCATION and health but, in the last three or four years, that has changed. At one point, resources were directed to health and social services, and EDUCATION was let down. Tremendous progress has been made in EDUCATION since I was a child. I am a member of this committee because this topic interests me greatly.
The Chairman: My name is Lorne Bonnell and I come from Prince Edward Island, where this great nation was born. From small beginnings we have a great country today and we are about to try its better its EDUCATION standards, with your help.
Ms Barker, perhaps you would proceed with your presentation and answer a few questions afterwards.
Ms Kathryn Barker, President, FuturEd Associates: Mr. Chairman, honourable senators, I come before you today as a parent, as a recent graduate of Post-Secondary education, and as a futurist. A futurist is not someone who knows the future, a futurist is a student of the future. That is how I make my living -- studying and anticipating the future, particularly of learning systems in this country.
You are considering Post-Secondary education, which includes colleges, private sector training initiatives and universities. Since many of the comments in Hansard focused on universities, I will tell a short story to illustrate my major point and then I will go to the points in my paper.
I have a question I like to ask university presidents. It has been said that the university is the last medieval institution. To what degree do you think that is a compliment, and to what degree do you think that is an insult? The way people answer that question is extremely telling. Many say that our post-secondary system has a duty to the past. I will argue vociferously that is also has a very special responsibility for the future. In order for it to be the kind of system we need it to be in the future, it must change radically.
I realize you will hear many presentations today, most of them by organizations that have gone through extensive processes of consultation to arrive at a consensus as to their presentation. I am a consensus of one. I have my own small consulting firm but I did consult no one. I have decided to step forward and say what I think. I am also a parent and a recent graduate. My alma mater is the University of Alberta. You have a copy of my brief, so I do not feel any pressing need to read it in its entirety. I will quickly go through it.
I have divided my presentation into two parts. The first part is that it is clear when you look at our post-secondary and other learning systems that many changes are taking place. I would suggest that those who have said that it just stays the same and nothing improves should take a close look. I have identified 11 ways it has changed.
The system is in the process of moving from being a closed one to being an open one. In the past, our systems removed themselves from the community. Institutions and agencies operated in isolation. Slowly we are beginning to realize that colleges, universities and school systems are all linked in one major system. We have a North America-wide EDUCATION system that has more in common between states, provinces and countries than it has differences. We have a system of EDUCATION, just as we have a system of health care and a system of military and government. We are finally able to talk about that which is important.
As an open system the feedback loop must be given attention. In the past, any criticism or comments for improvement were not necessarily listened to because the system was closed. It has now become open and, in large measure, that is due to the influence of the media and politicians.
Another change is that the system has moved from being one with a monopoly to one that has competition. The public system that has a monopoly on our credentials is now being challenged by the Internet and international training systems so that the credentials do not necessarily offer the only opportunity for gainful employment. Not only, then, is there competition for offering the credentials, but also there is competition for funding sources that did not exist in the past. The competition is extremely stiff in both cases.
Another major change is that we are moving from having a bureaucratic system to one that is far more individualized. The bureaucratic system is one of the characteristics of an industrial-age institution. Massive bureaucracy, large size, and the grouping of everything, was a characteristic of the industrial age. We must move into the knowledge age where, knowing that we have opportunities for individualization, we seize and use them. People, as consumers of EDUCATION, as they are consumers of everything else, are pointing out that not only do they expect it, but also there is no reason why they cannot have it. We have the technology to make that possible.
The system is moving from having been prescriptive to being responsive. In the past we allowed the EDUCATION system to tell us what was best -- "We are professionally trained educators. We will tell you what you are going to learn, and we will assess you." More and more students, business people, labour leaders and citizens are saying that perhaps we need a dialogue on this subject. They feel that, perhaps, they should be able to say what they need and that there should be some response to their concerns. That is a major shift that is taking place.
In the past, the system has been linear but it is becoming cyclical. Formerly, our system was age and time dependent. All children at the age of six would start Grade 1 and undergraduate students would take four years to finish their degree. More and more the concepts of age and time are becoming irrelevant. We are a long way from them being totally irrelevant, but there is no particular reason why we assume that all people in one age cohort will have the same needs, opportunities and responsibilities.
The system is moving from having been a student screen one, to being one that is learner enabling, although we are a long way from that. Currently, at the end of the first 12 years, our school system separates the 30 per cent of students who can go on to Post-Secondary education from the other 70 per cent who cannot. They have been screened out. We then again use the post-secondary system to screen students out. We allow for failure. In the minds of some, and certainly some futurists, that is unacceptable. There should be no reason why everyone cannot succeed, not necessarily all at the same level and certainly not in the same period of time. There should not be any opportunity for failure in an learner-enabling institution.
Another change is moving EDUCATION from being a privilege to one of a right and responsibility. The notion of EDUCATION as a privilege has made us somewhat complacent but, through initiatives that we largely see in the United States and, certainly, they carry over into Canada, we see the beginning of class-action lawsuits where people are trying to explore what the Charter of Rights means in terms of their rights and responsibilities regarding EDUCATION, training and life-long learning.
The system is moving from having been a costly, social agency to an industry that employs a huge number of Canadians with the very same needs as any other industry for human resource development -- leadership, professional development, training opportunities, adjustment and all those issues that are related to labour-force and economic development. We are not really clear about whether we still expect one system to be that kind of a social agency.
The system is moving from having been labour intensive to being capital intensive. This is partly because technology has made it possible to use fewer people to do marking, record keeping and testing, things that computers do very cost efficiently and effectively. Because of so many budget cut-backs, we are seeing people being laid off from that system and being replaced by technology.
The system has been developed to maintain the status quo. That is related to its notion as a social agency. We now know that we need our systems to help promote change rather than promote the status quo. The biggest problem here is you cannot talk about change without being seen to model it. The only way that people will take EDUCATION seriously is if it does model positive, proactive change. It cannot say one thing and do another.
The last major change I have identified here is that we are moving from EDUCATION and training being a provincial or institutional responsibility to one that is a national and global concern. Certainly there are enough initiatives both nationally and federally for us to recognize that. Some issues are dealt with at the national level, and there have always been issues which are dealt with at the provincial and local levels. If we applied the principle of subsidiarity, taking the decision making to the level where it is most appropriate, we would find that we would have to do some reconfiguration.
At the end of the day Canada is the only one of the G-7 countries that does not have a national office of EDUCATION. When we are out there competing in the international sphere, promoting our EDUCATION system, we look like monkeys with 13 different territories and jurisdictions and not one centralized source of information, promotion or understanding.
If we know change is happening, and if we are concerned about bringing positive change into play, then it makes sense to have a system to do that. To manage those changes we must first understand that we have a system of inputs, processes and outcomes that configures our learning system. It is circular, so we put in funding, physical plant, curriculum, and we go through the learning processes, practices of evaluation, monitoring, management and learning is the outcome. People have acquired changed skills, and added to them behaviours and values. There are individual outcomes as well as the larger, broader societal outcomes. Another outcome is knowledge itself, certainly from post-secondary institutions.
Thinking about it as a system we must understand that, by fiddling with one portion there will be implications for everything else. In British Columbia today the government wants to extend the school day, without talking about the changes that are required in terms of the system or how the outcomes will change. That is simply tinkering with the system without taking into account the nature of systems.
Through my research, I have come up with questions that would help us to focus on how to bring about change. The first one is: Who are the customers of the system and what are their real needs? Based on the assumption that the cohort we are talking about are in Post-Secondary education it is largely, 18 to 25 year-olds, although we know that the average age of the majority of students in Post-Secondary education is higher than that. However, if we were to assume that the age cohort of 18 to 25 is the primary audience, then we must ask: What are their real needs? I do not know the answer to that question.
If we did know the answer to that question I would wager that we would provide Post-Secondary education in a very different form. It would take into account issues that concern young people, and it would be easier for them to learn. That learning experience would stay with them for the rest of their lives and they would become life-long learners. The system is not set up that way at this point. If we considered the real needs of customers or consumers of EDUCATION and training -- and that is part of the input into the system -- clearly, we would have to have different processes and practices which would result in different outcomes. By asking this question we can change every element of the system. If I end up at the end of my life being labelled a consumer's advocate of EDUCATION and training, I would be pleased. The customer in our learning systems has not been listened to, has not been given any authority whatsoever. They alone can bring about positive change if they know what questions to ask. I am in the business of helping the customers to know what questions to ask so they get the very best possible EDUCATION and training that they can.
How can a formal EDUCATION system prepare individuals for the future, and what content and skills must be transmitted? This focuses on the curriculum content of our learning systems. Futurists are very clear that not only are we teaching some things we do not need to be teaching, but also we are not teaching some of the things we need to teach. An example is the notion of long-term thinking and long-term consequences. Typologically we have not developed to be responsive to long-term danger. We have evolved as a species because we could run at the snap of a twig or the flash or lightening. We know how to respond to short-term danger. However, we do not have the capacity to respond to long-term danger. We need our learning systems to help people to understand that life goes on beyond the first quarter, the next election and the next fiscal year. We have a real need for long-range planning and global planning. From the perspective of the futurists, the curriculum must change, but the recommendations for change are varied. If we change the curriculum, then we would have different teachers, and we would certainly have different outcomes.
How can professional educators be encouraged and assisted in the process of transforming EDUCATION? This is from the perspective that, if those who work inside the system are expected to implement positive change, then it only makes sense to start with them and ask them how they can participate in that change. It is extremely difficult for them because they are locked into and are products of the system. At this point, they are the finest product of that system. They are the people who succeeded all the way through the screening to get to the very top. Change is difficult for them, so the question is: How can they be helped to do that? Should knowledge acquisition and utilization be the content or the process of formal EDUCATION?
We used to think as empty vessels we could fill young people with enough knowledge that they would go off and use it. We now know that they must be able to find and manipulate knowledge. None of us can remember all of the information we need to remember. You have a laptop or a computer somewhere that is storing files and the minute you have saved it to your file you forget it because you know it is there somewhere in your computer. It is your external memory. There is so much information that we must become knowledge navigators, not the repositories of huge amounts of information.
We are talking of changing the way we deliver EDUCATION from focusing on knowledge to manipulating, using and generating knowledge. What should be the purpose of our formal EDUCATION and learning systems? What are the intended outcomes? When we talk about outcomes we talk about intended, unintended, long term and short term, positive and negative. What is it we expect all this money to produce? We have not had that conversation for a very long time in this country. People are blundering on wishing that somebody would ask the question, but not stepping forward to do that.
What do North Americans, young and old, need to learn, and where is it best learned? This focuses on the notion that not all learning takes place in formal learning environments. As community members, workers, readers and hobbyists, we are learning all the time. If we are to recognize that learning, and acknowledge that it has value, perhaps we are doing things inside our formal system that are unnecessary and not supporting the non-formal learning systems as we should. Perhaps we should ask: Do we expect our formal system to deliver all this or could it be delivered somewhere else? What are the primary decisions about EDUCATION and where should they most appropriately be made? This is the principle of subsidiarity. If we want national leadership, questions must be asked at the national level. It is clear that questions must be answered at both the national and the local levels to divide up responsibilities. This is not, under any circumstances, an intention to take away any autonomy from an individual organization like a college or university, but to divide up those responsibilities.
If you can only deliver one message, I would hope it would be a positive response to the following: How badly in this country we do need national and federal leadership; how badly we do need a national office of EDUCATION, national standards? There are those of us in the formal learning community who would be extremely supportive of that and hope that you can, in the ways that you have influence, bring that about.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms. Barker for your excellent presentation. Your fellow Albertan, Senator Forest, would like to ask a few questions.
Senator Forest: I am sure many people around in this room would agree that we need a national office and national guidelines, just as we have for health care. However, bearing in mind that we are a federation and EDUCATION is a provincial area, how would you address that?
Ms Barker: My first response is somewhat glib. When we consider the restrictions imposed by the BNA Act, we must remember that any legislation is just a piece of paper. It can be amended. Too often that argument is used to prevent change. Each province and territory has a system with similar elements, and they operate in the same way. It makes no sense, from a fiscal accountability perspective, and certainly from a globalization perspective, to have 13 fiefdoms running EDUCATION. There was a time when that was important. There was a time when distance made it difficult to consider Canada as unified, particularly from the point of view of EDUCATION. That is no longer true and there is no need for 13 departments of EDUCATION all doing the same thing over and over again.
Senator Forest: Do you see the Council of First Ministers as a vehicle through which a more national perspective might be achieved, recognizing that each province is unique and has its own particular needs?
Ms Barker: I would like to believe that is possible. Therein lies a huge amount of power, authority and responsibility. Given what they were able to achieve with the child tax credit, working together, we have reason to believe it is possible. That is one important perspective. The other would be from outside the political system where you would put into positions of authority people who are informed about the system. It is the bureaucratic layer that would make an office of EDUCATION work. I know lots of people who would be interested in participating in that.
Senator Forest: You said that, with the cut-backs, no new positions would open and that there might even cutbacks. Recently positions have opened up in the university area. There has been a turnover of a whole group of professors who had been in their positions for many years. These may not be new positions but there certainly has been a major turnover in those positions. Surely that will facilitate change.
Ms Barker: You are absolutely correct that there has been a turnover in teaching staff. However, there is a huge rise in the number of part time and contractual workers, and there are fewer and fewer full-time positions. This has its up side and its down side. It may be the entrepreneur, the part-time worker who is better positioned to push for change. Unfortunately, what we are creating inside all our post-secondary institutions is a two-tiered system, those who have tenure and security, and those who do not and probably will never have. If they never talked to each other there would be no problem, but they do, and they say there very definitely is a two-tiered system.
Senator Forest: That is unfortunate, but it is competitive. In the United States there is tenure. We will be unable to attract good professors to our universities. They will not come unless they are offered more than a term contract.
Ms Barker: There is no question about it.
Senator Andreychuk: You have given us some new perspectives and challenges which should cause us to think about EDUCATION in a new way, and I thank you for that. You made a case for national input. The British North America Act may be a piece of paper, but it is a piece of paper that I value. It is legislation that is very difficult to amend, and rightly so. We tried to do that recently. Every system has impediments that are only impediments until we view them as positives. Given that we have a federal structure, and given that we have provinces who have a primary responsibility, but not an exclusive responsibility, for all EDUCATION, can I describe what you have said as being that the national role is not to usurp what the provinces are doing but to be a facilitator to draw those commonalities together?
We had some excellent presentations this morning about the role of the national body as a facilitator in rationalizing some of the loan processes and alleviating some of the difficulties students run into such as having a curriculum consensus so that mobility is enhanced. You say we do not need 13 offices. However, that might be desirable if those 13 offices have some shared objectives. In foreign policy we do have more than national input, although the national government takes the lead. In your futuristic view, within our existing constitutional restraints, and respecting mandates, do you see the national body performing a facilitating role which would impact on the 11 areas you have identified, and particularly globalization?
Ms Barker: You are right, if we focused only on trying to change the BNA Act we would not get anything done in terms of EDUCATION. Let us look at the positive aspects. One of the fundamental roles that is unfulfilled at this point is the sharing of information. Among all the universities and colleges in Canada there are terrific innovations, but no one agency gathers them up and shares them with others. Unless you know somebody at a different college or university, the chances are you might never know about some of the wonderful work that is going on. It would be useful if one body could perform a clearing house function -- gathering up information and making it accessible to those within the system.
Another important function would be as an effective interface between Canada and the world community, to be that entry point where agencies and organizations that have questions to ask would know where to start in Canada. Presently they must go to 13 provincial ministries to get the information they require.
There is no intention to take away any of the responsibilities from each of the provinces or institutions that have autonomy, but to coordinate that and do it from the perspective of what is best for Canadians, not what is best for these institutions or the provincial ministries.
If you have your training in Alberta and you cannot use that certificate to work in Ontario you, effectively, have foreign credentials in your own country. That is unacceptable. It is unacceptable that Canadians cannot live and work in their own country with qualifications they acquire in their own country. Increase the mobility of individuals, credits and credentials so that we operate as if we are one country. Think about how that would enhance national unity. You could take your acquired credentials and work in another part of the country. At this point that is extremely difficult, especially for professionals.
Senator Andreychuk: In your research and reading come across any studies on how Canadians wile fare for the future, vis-à-vis other G-7 countries? Do you believe that the prospects for young students coming out of our EDUCATIONal systems, in whichever province, with the multitude of internal problems we have, are well positioned to be global competitors as thinkers, not just as workers?
Ms Barker: There is no question about it. We have a superb system. It needs some improvements and a different paradigm of measurement, but we are well positioned to be world leaders in learning systems. It should become a key element of our economic development and strategy.
Senator Andreychuk: Do you think we will have something to sell if we get our act together and have some national perspectives?
Ms Barker: Absolutely.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: I cannot but be in agreement with you about national standards. I am not sure that the BNA Act prevents that. EDUCATION is the most sensitive domain in terms of provincial responsibility. The reason for it is simple, it is through EDUCATION that history, language and the values of society are transmitted -- and we will not discuss here, British Columbia, whether Quebec is a distinct society. I am not quite sure what more we would achieve if there were a centralized office of EDUCATION. I do not know if that would make us, as a society, any better, or make our system of EDUCATION any better.
Nothing prevents the University of British Columbia, McGill University in Montreal -- and they do it in Montreal because there are four universities in Montreal -- trying to coordinate what they do so the left hand knows what the right hand is doing. People say we must have national standards and we must have a centralized body of some kind that will plan our system of EDUCATION. I am not sure our system of EDUCATION would be any better if that were the case. Firstly, I am not sure it is feasible and, secondly, I do not know how that would improve the situation.
The responsibility of the federal government in EDUCATION is to keep making it a priority and not just if we have anything left we will give it to EDUCATION. Specific areas can be identified, such as research, where we have to make more of an effort towards national standards. Even if we had those national standards would EDUCATION in this country be any better?
Ms Barker: It makes it possible for Canadians to be mobile inside their own country.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: I agree with you.
Ms Barker: I wish you could have been with me at a conference of the World Future Society last year in Washington where the keynote speaker listed all the things that were going to happen. The audience was largely American. He said, "Canada will break apart before the year 2000. "To those people sitting with me at the table who knew I was Canadian, I said, "We don't talk about it quite that way in Canada". Futurists take for granted that large conglomerates of countries are falling apart all around the world and it is assumed that that is what will happen to Canada. Those of us who think that is not a great way to go, want to find ways to increase national awareness and promote national unity. Students being taught 13 different kinds of curriculum will not contribute to national unity. National standards would not set out exactly what must be taught and how, but they would, at least, set a common purpose, a common set of goals that we would all be striving for, so that Canadian children and young people will grow up to believe they are contributing to something much larger than their province or region.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: I agree that we should abolish whatever barriers there are between provinces to increase the mobility. Part of this immobility is due to restrictions imposed by professional bodies, such as the Quebec Bar Association and the Ontario Bar Association. Those professional bodies are not controlled by the government, they are controlled by various professional corporations and they are a major barrier to the mobility of professional people.
Senator Andreychuk: Statistics Canada is playing a role because we do not have a Ministry of EDUCATION. The provinces are sharing information though a council of ministers because there is no federal Minister of EDUCATION. The role of the federal government is as a facilitator to encourage the sharing of information. Is that what you are talking about, or are you talking about more of a political presence of the federal government? Are you saying it is their responsibility to see that everybody gets around the table as equal partners?
Ms Barker: I am probably saying both. It would be great if they could animate cooperation. There is also a political role. There is a need for discussion at the political level. One of my greatest hopes is that somewhere in the next election campaign people begin to ask: What is it a party stands for in terms of national leadership, EDUCATION and learning systems? It is a two-step concept, but both are possible and probable.
Senator Carney: For the last six years I have been teaching a graduate course at the Faculty of Graduate Studies at the University of British Columbia at the School of Regional Planning. I have noticed over that period that my students are better postated, more literate -- maybe that is just because of spell check -- more demanding of their instructors, and produce a higher standard of work than they did six years ago. We must be doing something right, because this is a discernible trend. I doubt if it is all due to the brilliance of their professors. Somewhere we are doing something right. Perhaps we should concentrate on what it is that we are doing correctly.
My question is about the consumer attitude that you expressed in your very provocative and excellent presentation. You made the point that EDUCATION is a consumer service and everyone is entitled to be a consumer or entitled to Post-Secondary education. Implicit in that argument is that everyone knows what they want to consume, that everybody knows what it is they want out of their EDUCATION system. I do not find that the case in the young people I talk to. They are often there continuing their EDUCATION because they do not know what it is they want to do. In our society, opportunities to be exposed to different professions, skills and demands are unequal, but we do not know how to forecast skills.
I asked Dr. Roberta Bondar if she would encourage women to go into the sciences and she said she would not particularly do that, because she had no idea if there was going to be any demand for women scientists at the end of the period. Can you explore, before ending this session, how you put limits on the cost of a consumer EDUCATION society where everybody is entitled to consumer EDUCATION? How do you deal with the fact that not everyone knows what they want to consume?
Ms Barker: As long as EDUCATION is relatively free, where people do not have to spend as much of their own money on it, then a student could waste a year or two. They could explore for two or three years, as I and many others did, and not be penalized for it too much. Now we know that students are having to borrow so much for every year of EDUCATION, I am not sure we can allow them the freedom to go so far in debt exploring what it is they want to be when they grow up. As to how that will be limited, I would suggest that it must be a public decision that EDUCATION will be subsidized by the state only to a certain degree.
The beneficiaries of this publicly funded system in Canada are business and industry, for the most part, and I do not see they are necessarily paying for the product they get, which is a highly postated Canadian citizenry.
How do we help young people to know better what they want? In Ottawa I worked for the Canadian Labour Force Development Board which established recommended national training standards. Those standards are almost apple pie and motherhood statements but, together, they comprise a description of excellence in training. They deal with simple statements such as: training must be conducted by people who have some kind of credentials or credibility to be instructors. We take that for granted, but a young person or student entering the training environment may not know what questions to ask. If they are given a description of excellence they can ask questions that are aimed at achieving excellence. Presently, we are creating a consumer's guide to EDUCATION and training. It includes the questions people should ask before they choose from among the five community colleges, three universities, 18 private training institutions, as well as the Internet programs that are available. They can use this consumers guide so they know what questions to ask. That will minimize the chance of not getting the best return on their investment and/or wasting some of their investment. I use that word very pejoratively.
Senator Perrault: You portray a doomsday scenario for many EDUCATION professionals when you state:
So many of these functions can now be done faster and cheaper by technology. So many others are being done by collaborative groups for the benefit of each one. This combined with budget cutbacks will result in massive downsizing of human capital expenditures, that is, layoffs in the EDUCATION industry all across North American. Clearly, there is a need here for an industrial adjustment strategy.
That is a real doomsday scenario. I wonder how much cooperation you can expect from the teaching profession if your prediction is that so many of them are going to be moved out of the system.
On page 10 of your brief you quote from Restructuring Schools: The Next Generation of EDUCATIONal Reform by Richard Elmore and his associates who argue for increased rewards for teachers, increased opportunities to lead change efforts, and increased accountability through evaluation. That is not a doomsday scenario, it is a great opportunity for teachers to earn more money and figure in all these changes. Could you clarify this for us? There seems to be a contradiction here.
Ms Barker: Those are two sources of information.
Senator Perrault: Do you agree with both sources?
Ms Barker: I do. The layoffs will be from the existing system because certain functions will no longer be required. That is not to say we do not need teachers. We need them to do different things. Technology can do the marking, the assessment, and the managing. In our current system we have many people performing those functions. We will need fewer people in those areas, but we will still need people to perform other functions.
Senator Perrault: It is not so much a matter of massive layoffs as it is a matter of teachers developing and teaching new skills?
Ms Barker: It is a restructuring.
Senator Perrault: Do you envision massive layoffs?
Ms Barker: I would like to think we can prevent massive layoffs because that would be extremely disruptive for large numbers of people. We must make changes from inside the system and encourage people to participate in bringing about change. There is a concern that many of our teachers and professors are not as computer literate as some of the young people they are teaching. Are they taking the time to become more familiar with technology; or are they saying that you cannot teach old dogs new tricks? If the latter is the case, do we really want them teaching our young people?
If they can be encouraged one way or another, either by force or the threat of layoffs, which is the least desirable method of bringing that about, or through giving them the opportunity to go through other training programs, not just technology programs, but all sorts of other programs, so that they can participate in a different learning system where they do not see themselves as having to have all of the knowledge, but see themselves as helping people to understand, use and generate knowledge.
Senator Perrault: You do not see the teachers lined up at the food banks because they have been fired. You see them assuming new responsibilities; is that correct?
Ms Barker: Some futurists say that one morning we will wake up and there will not be a school system as it exists now, because these people have refused to change.
Senator Perrault: I talked to a foreign affairs minister from one of the Pacific Rim countries which he was attending a conference in Vancouver last year. His nation is made of one thousand islands and bringing EDUCATION to all of the young people is very difficult. Canadian distant technology is meeting that nation's problems, although it is in its experimental stage. A small satellite dish just above the Equator and transmit instruction by a teacher to those isolated children who live in the thousand islands that make up Indonesia.
Senator Carney: Our B.C. Open Learning Institute is teaching them.
Senator Perrault: Instead of sending teachers into every little district, they assistants who may not have a professional standing can help the youngsters at a local level. They can ensure their students write their examinations and essays. That will have a colossal effect on EDUCATION if it is adopted by other countries.
Ms Barker: Absolutely. You are talking about two items. One is our capacity to market and produce consumer goods that others are buying, and we are seen as global leaders in that regard. The other is the implication it has for Canadians at home. Through distance delivery it is now possible to attain a degree, diploma or certificate without leaving home.
Senator Perrault: I understand that Queen's University is buying commercials on CKNW to encourage students to sign up for a business administration course. I would like to know what kind of degree they are offering. It would be a source of revenue source. I presume the Premier of Ontario and his budget policies have inspired EDUCATIONal institutions to find other sources of revenue.
Ms Barker: It is still all premised on the paradigm that the credential is something we all want. Not all employers are concerned about credentials now. They are concerned about learning. They are concerned that people have skills, knowledge and attitudes, but they do not necessarily have to have a credential, and are not convinced that some of our credentials do represent skills, knowledge and attitude.
We have heard the miracle story of the kid who dropped out of high school, went off to California, and is making millions with Apple Computers. That is a bit of an exaggeration. My son, who is 21, did not finish high school and he is struggling right now. He is on that cusp and he is not alone. He is one of countless other young people who are wondering whether they should go back to school to get their credentials or whether they should develop their own entrepreneurial skills. My son has marketable skills. He has motivation and a dream and he is asking me whether he should he go back to school or give his dream a try. I think many parents in Canada are in that situation.
The Chairman: Thank you Ms Barkley for your excellent presentation.
We will now hear from the University Presidents' Council of British Columbia. Mr. Jago, perhaps you could introduce your colleagues, make your presentation and be prepared to answer questions.
Dr. Charles Jago, President, University of Northern British Columbia: Mr. Chairman, honourable senators, Dean Goard, the Secretary of the Council, will answer all the difficult technical questions you may wish to raise. Dr. Daniel Birch, Vice-President Academic and Provost of the University of British Columbia is also with us. We will summarize our brief, raise some other matters, and leave time for questions and an exchange of views.
We wish to give you a sense of what is taking place here to underline some of the distinctive features of universities in British Columbia. At the same time, we will raise a number of issues of common concern with universities in other jurisdictions. We will touch on themes raised by other universities, by the AUCC, and by the Council of Western University Presidents and others who have made submissions to you.
The University Presidents' Council of British Columbia was established in 1987. Up until around 1994, it was known as the Tri-Universities Presidents' Council. There are now more than three universities in British Columbia. The change in name of that association characterizes the very dynamic context in which universities are operating in this province.
Dr. Birch will say more about the nature of the post-secondary system in the province and where universities fit in, and give you some highlights of the achievements of the universities over the last few years, particularly some information about the impact of university EDUCATION on the economy of British Columbia.
Dr. Daniel Birch, Vice-President Academic and Provost, University of British Columbia: Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to be here with my colleagues from the University Presidents' Council of British Columbia.
British Columbia has a remarkably integrated and coherent system of higher EDUCATION. Its capacity overall is significantly less than most other provinces when compared to the population. Its coherence is a remarkable characteristic. The system of 28 institutions includes three long-established universities. A fourth university is now well underway. Although it is called the University of Northern British Columbia, it is virtually in the geographic centre of the province and serves many students from the lower mainland as well as the north.
With the transfer from the federal government of Royal Roads University, specific-purpose universities have been added. That has been established as a provincial university to focus only on technical and professional programs and on a variety of modes of delivery.
Of our system of colleges, whose academic programs are well integrated with the universities, in recent years five have been made university colleges. They have maintained their comprehensive mandate, carrying a whole range of technical and vocational programs through academic programs, but after five or six years of offering degrees in joint ventures with the universities, they have been given the mandate, by legislation, to offer degrees in their own right.
Virtually overnight this resulted in a tremendous increase in the number of institutions offering degree courses. We have moved from four degree-granting institutions, the three southern universities and the Open Learning Agency, to 14 institutions authorized to grant degrees. That means we are facing a fairly interesting challenge in the coordination of degree-program development and the continuing complementarity among those institutions.
What we are seeing is a wide range of degrees -- not only the B.A. and B.Sc. but, to a greater extent, the Bachelor of Technology in specific applied fields -- developing throughout the province; degrees in tourism; degrees that were allied in quite specific ways to the regional and provincial economy. These involve an interesting range of tasks. We have established together, the ministry, the colleges, the institutes and the universities, a degree program review committee that has, in the last year, considered proposals for 51 new degree programs and approved 25 of those.
If we can maintain some reasonable coherence, complementarity and continuing mobility, we believe that the system of Post-Secondary education in British Columbia will maintain its quality as well as enhance its capacity. The university and the college sectors do cooperate well. Both sectors are represented on the B.C. Council of Admissions and Transfers, a forum where they work together to resolve issues. There are about 40,000 agreements. There are fewer than 40,000 courses but, with a single course being accepted across 20 institutions, it does not take long to reach 40,000 transfer agreements across the system. Following these hearings we will provide you with the updated annual report from the university sector. I am sure you will find that of interest.
We have only recently begun to gather evidence specifically to determine how the university experience has affected the lives of its graduates. We are doing that by asking them directly. We have data about employment, earnings and the growth of the sector that is providing employment for graduates of various programs. We have only recently begun to conduct surveys of our graduates in cooperation with the institutions and the ministry. In 1995, almost 7,500 graduates responded, more than 80 per cent of the class. A much larger percentage of those who were tracked down indicated their willingness to respond. We are finding what you would expect, a significant integration into the work force and a high level of satisfaction with programs on the part of students. There is still a considerable interest in enhancing the relationship between their EDUCATION and the world of work.
It is no accident that cooperative EDUCATION programs represent the fastest growing sector in the universities. In the last three years, the number of students in co-op programs in engineering and science has more than doubled in the universities of British Columbia. The number of students taking co-op placements around the Pacific Rim is growing rapidly and there is a mutual reinforcement between the co-op programs and the trend towards internationalization in our universities.
We are now engaged with interviews following up the class of 1991, five years out, to ascertain what their experience has been. Subsequent to this, we will share our findings with you.
Mr. Jago: Mr. Chairman, I wish to touch on some general matters of federal and provincial responsibility, and address the committee's mandate to look at curricular change and technical change in university EDUCATION. I will also speak to the student financial assistance brief that has been presented.
We have been as much affected as any other provincial set of universities by the rposttion in federal transfer payments. We feel very fortunate in this province that the provincial government did not pass on those cuts to the universities. We have been protected. Grants to universities were frozen this past year, and we expect similar treatment next year. That freeze in grant rposttion has been welcomed. All things being relative -- and I have been in this game long enough to be amazed -- I could be pleased with a freeze in grant funding. It has been accompanied by a freeze in tuition fees, so we have been unable to increase tuition fees this year, and we will not increase them next year. There has been a relative freeze and ancillary freeze charged to students.
The province has required increased productivity on the part of provincial universities. Enrolments have increased; the provincial grant has remained steady; there has been no increase in tuition fees; and there is a level of inflation with which we will have to contend. Inflationary pressures for universities are probably somewhat different and more dramatic than indicated by the CPI.
While we feel that we have been favourably treated, we do have concerns about the long-term viability of this situation. If our income is measured in real terms, we are being required to do more with less. We have made it very clear to the government that this situation is not sustainable over the long term. We are fearful that, when this situation begins to give way, it could have a dramatic impact, one way or another, on the charge to students for their EDUCATION.
There is the issue of planning university EDUCATION within the province. Recently, the province approved a plan for the college and institute sectors. We were not included as part of that plan, so there is discussion about provincial planning for the university system. We expect a much greater degree of accountability requirement.
There is a report from the Auditor General of British Columbia that sets out an accountability framework for ministries, Crown corporations and funded agencies, including universities. We are very receptive to that approach, and look forward to working with the Auditor General.
Our greater concern is that there may be too much direction from the ministry. We take great pride in the distinctiveness of the universities and the degree of autonomy we have. We feel that autonomy allows us to be creative and to respond to pressures and opportunities. That leads me to the issues of changing curriculum and new technologies.
I described the British Columbia system at the outset as very dynamic, and I mean that. British Columbia universities are leaders in the area of what used to be called "distance EDUCATION". "Distributed learning" is the new phrase. In terms of developing web-based courses, using interactive television, providing EDUCATION in remote communities, the University of Victoria does that in social work and nursing EDUCATION. The University of Northern British Columbia is developing professional programs for people in remote communities. We could give you more examples during the question and answer period.
I want to note that, through B.C. Net, through the provincial learning network, through an electronic sharing of library resources, and in a whole host of ways we live in a very dynamic context, and universities are playing a key role in the development of distance EDUCATION in the province.
I want to take one exception to what was said by the previous speaker. Distance EDUCATION is no panacea, it is extremely costly, the initial investment is extremely high, the cost of maintaining the course is extremely high and it still requires a lot of attention on the part of the people teaching the courses. It will not rposte the cost of EDUCATION. It will certainly give people far more opportunity than they have ever had to learn in a structured way, and we are quite excited about those developments, as we are about the fact that British Columbia, with some of the new institutions and degree programs, is responding to those specific needs. We now have Bachelor of Applied Technology degrees that are serving the needs of industry and Royal Roads is a good example of a new institution responding to new markets.
Touching on federal issues, we strongly support the presentation made to you by the AUCC. We see the need for a very strong federal presence in post-secondary EDUCATION in a number of areas. One is research, including research funding. It is absolutely imperative that the federal government maintains a strong support for research in this country, provide assistance to the universities and respond positively to some of the recent proposals put forward by the AUCC in the area of research infrastructure, technology transfer and other proposals. The universities play a key role in research and development. That is clearly the case in this province. It is even true of a very young and dynamic institution such as UNBC. Our research role in the north is becoming absolutely essential to the economic development of that region. I hope in your report you underline the importance of the federal role in that area.
Dr. Birch touched upon the involvement we had with international EDUCATION. Many of our students are involved in international exchange programs. Many of our institutions market their EDUCATIONal programs abroad. It is important that the federal government assist universities in this effort and established arrangements that promote Canadian universities abroad and give Canadian university students opportunities to study abroad.
Another area I should like to touch on is student assistance. Here I wear two hats because I am also on the AUCC committee that deals with funding. I was excited with the recent development of a report to the federal government with a common front taken by universities, faculty associations and student groups. That coming together clearly confirms that there is a real crisis in the area of student financial assistance. In British Columbia the government has been very responsive in terms of a grant program for students in their first and second year and a loan remission program upon graduation. There is good provincial support, but there is a great need in this country for better coordination of student assistance programs at the provincial and federal levels. I hope you strongly emphasize that in your report. Other than those three areas, what is the federal role in university EDUCATION? I believe the federal role is to bring people together, to bring the province together, to articulate a national standard, to facilitate, encourage and promote. Higher EDUCATION is a provincial responsibility, but I hope we do not become provincial in our viewpoint. I say that with respect to student mobility issues. It is essential in this country that we continue to support the ability of our students to move across the country and not be confined to a province. While it is important that provincial jurisdictions be respected, and I would not argue otherwise, there is a key role for the federal government to set a standard and to assert that EDUCATION is not confining, it is a broadening experience and there is a legitimate national presence in university EDUCATION.
Mr. Birch: I would like to share with the committee a few graphs and tables which might be of interest, particularly in relating the provincial to the national scene.
The first graph illustrates employment in this province by EDUCATIONal level and over two decades. You will note, in looking at that table, that the number of people employed who have elementary and secondary EDUCATION or who have not completed it has remained virtually constant at 600,000 or 700,000 employees over that 20-year period. The number of those who have taken some Post-Secondary education but not completed, has increased from a little over 100,000 to close to 200,000, an increase of about 50 per cent.
The next sector, those with vocational and technical diplomas, has doubled, and those with university degrees has trebled. This is graphic evidence that the most rapidly growing sector of employment is for people with post-secondary EDUCATION.
The second graph illustrates the inverse of this. If you will look at the percentage of the population unemployed, the bottom line represents those with university degrees. It is what one would expect, or maybe a little higher, at about 5.5 per cent. It has been relatively constant over the last number of years. The sector with the highest unemployment is those who have not had any Post-Secondary education. The other three divisions are clustered very closely together.
The next graph shows what might be called the "university gap". The lower line, the one with the squares, shows the number of graduates from B.C. universities each year. You can see we have gone to a little over 10,000 graduates annually. If you look at the line with the number of jobs for those graduates annually, with the exception of three years in which there was a quite severe recession, the demand for university graduates is so far above the number of graduates that it is quite striking.
The final page shows two things. On the top table let us take the university columns first, the number of graduates and the number of graduates required for the job openings. In the 1977 to 1981 period you can see that was 6,600 graduates and almost 12,000 positions. The ratio remained similar, except for one five-year period, 1987 to 1991 when it went crazy. In the past decade, we have had almost 12,000 graduates and 35,500 jobs for them, annually.
On the right you will see what has happened in the case of vocational and technical graduates. Similarly, there was a big increase in demand. That increase took place a few years earlier and has remained fairly constant. I do not have the data about the vocational and technical graduates. Looking at the bottom table on that page you notice two things. In terms of the percentage of the population aged 15 and over with a university degree, you will notice that Ontario leads with 15.3 per cent; British Columbia is next with 14.7, followed by Alberta with 13.2. The right-hand table shows the university degrees awarded per 100,000 residents aged 20 to 29. Nova Scotia, at 4,100 is more than double the British Columbia number. British Columbia is last, producing the fewest university graduates per 100,000 residents aged 20 to 29. We are not keeping up with the growth, unlike the rest of Canada.
The 19 to 24 age group, which we often talk about as the traditional one in university, is growing by 4,000 a year. If we only dealt with a 25 per cent participation rate, we would have to add 1,000 places a year in university just to keep up with the growth in the population.
What is interesting about this table is, if you look at the left-hand column, you will see that the pool is a national one. There is mobility. Clearly that is a reason for the national government to pay attention to the opportunities provided to young people. British Columbia has no difficulty attracting people with degrees. Over the years, it has been so easy to bring them in from other provinces or overseas that we have not been responsible in providing opportunities for our own young people to get a higher EDUCATION. That is the message of that last table.
Senator Andreychuk: The graphs showing the university gap of those who do not have any Post-Secondary education has remained constant, but job openings have fluctuated. It seems to me that is what we, as a trading nation, will face in the future with global trade and the global economy, whether we are referring to unskilled or skilled workers. It is not important for us to produce, say, 3,000 engineers by the year 2000; our training should be balanced so that we are prepared for whatever the future will bring. Is that a correct assessment?
I believe it is even more important to have some kind of national forums and perspectives so we can share resources as a country and be the Team Canada of EDUCATION as we have been the Team Canada of trade.
Mr. Birch: It would be a total disaster if, in our human resource planning, our aim was to provide specific skills in specific numbers. It is interesting to note that, when the Committee of Deans at UBC asked what skills and knowledge should characterize the UBC graduate, whatever the field, those included working in a group, defining problems, understanding cultural differences, ethical literacy and sensitivity. At the end of the day it was amazing to me how close those were to the Conference Board of Canada's employability skills. That is probably the most demanded single document related to EDUCATION in the last couple of decades. Millions of copies have been requested.
I think you are correct in that we need flexibility to be able to change.
Senator Andreychuk: When the students appeared before the committee this morning, their main focus was how to get into post secondary EDUCATION institutions, and how to pay for it. They told us that summer jobs and part time jobs are just not available.
The last time I graduated was in 1967. Male students always had an advantage over the female students because they could get labour jobs on a highway or on a construction site and earn a fair amount of money to get them through university. Nowadays those jobs are not available. That traditional method of paying for EDUCATION has dried up. This pool of unskilled labour is not fluctuating the way it used to. Would that be true of British Columbia or is there still some ability to move into that unskilled labour force for a time to earn some resources?
Mr. Jago: The time students spend in EDUCATION is increasing. Now it is a rare student who does a four-year degree program in four years. More often it takes students five or six years. Part of that is because many students in this province are involved in co-op EDUCATION. We are heavily invested in co-op EDUCATION. The students are getting work experience as part of their Post-Secondary education. In the absence of summer and part-time jobs, students will drop out for a year to take an unskilled job and get some money to come back.
A significant number of students do part-time work while studying. That makes it virtually impossible to carry a full academic load. Whether that is good or bad, I do not wish to comment. It has some positive features. Many people in that unskilled pool are in the process of becoming skilled.
Senator Carney: Earlier we discussed the concept of forecasting skills which will be required. The table of graduates required for job openings and the number of graduates illustrates that there were fewer graduates than job openings, which should indicate a skill deficit. You explained part of that is filled with labour mobility. Is it reality, virtual, or not, that we can forecast the skills required in the labour market? There seems to be a formula type of approach where you project that so many foresters or computer experts will be required.
Given the tenure requirements, the realities of staffing universities, the realities of administrative obstacles and union barriers, can you deliver the instruction required? Those are two rather practical questions.
Mr. Birch: As to the first question, the history of human resource development in any economy is dismal. It is even worse when the boundaries of the country do not make a huge difference. We are dealing in a very real sense at an individual level with a global economy.
Senator Carney: Your answer is not clear to me. Can you forecast skills?
Mr. Birch: No. You cannot forecast a specific field of employment. You can address skills which are more generic and more flexible. That is what we should be aiming for to the greatest extent that we can, recognizing people will be retooling in specific skill areas throughout their careers.
Senator Carney: Are you referring to skills such as communications skills, problem- solving skills and so on?
Mr. Birch: Yes.
Senator Carney: I do not think of them as skills, I think of them as disciplines.
Mr. Birch: I find Roslyn Kunin's approach a very interesting one. If you will excuse an anecdote, she tells a story of the son of a friend saying to her, "Roslyn, I am desperate. I have sent out 100 résumés and I did not have a single nibble. I went to a good institution, UBC. I took a good discipline, engineering. I came by it honestly because my dad is an engineer. I am desperate for work. Are there jobs out there?" She said, "You are asking the wrong question. There is work, but there are no jobs." There has been a shift in that people looking for jobs must now ask themselves what skills they have that they can bring to a particular job. She said this particular young person, and I know it is anecdotal, came back to her nine days later with an 18-month contract under which he would be making more than his father had after 25 years as an engineer with BC Hydro.
I know you cannot multiply that by thousands and I know we tenured professors are not in a very credible position when we say to young people not to worry about jobs. However, that is what we are seeing among many university young people. I have seen it in my own family, and I am sure you have seen it in yours.
On the question of employment, we are seeing a shift from job and promotion constituting a career to the development of further skills and involvement in further work, but not in the same firm throughout the career.
Senator Carney: Can you actually deliver that kind of instruction, given your human resources, your institutional barriers and the fact that you deliver credentials? Credentials equals jobs and promotion.
Mr. Birch: Let me give a number of examples. Our Wood Science department is an outstanding department academically. It does remarkable research. The only problem was that, a couple of years ago there were no students. Round tables were conducted nationally with employers who were asked what was needed in this area. As a result, the manufacturers of wood products created a national EDUCATIONal initiative, and held a national competition. After wining that competition, because we were engaged in asking those questions, we now have an advanced wood products processing program that is oriented towards value added in the wood-products industry. That is desperately in need, not only in British Columbia, but also throughout Canada.
I could mention dozens of programs that have attempted to address the needs of the economy, provincially, nationally and internationally; and, with a fairly generic EDUCATION, considered what the opportunities may be. British Columbia is doubling the number of parks and preserves. Our forestry faculty now offers a conservation program that is more popular than its traditional forestry program. Using many of the same skills and knowledge, it is packaging the program in a way that is responsive to global issues, national and international needs, rather than the way we prepared people for specific professions in the past.
I am optimistic about the ability to change.
Senator Carney: I am a client and a fan of the UBC Sports Medicine Clinic. In the Monday morning group a professor at your university, who was the master teacher last year, told me that UBC has combined oceanography, earth sciences, geophysics and astronomy into one group to get a critical mass of students, in order to deliver expertise in that area. Is that the type of situation you are talking about?
Mr. Birch: It is not just to get a critical mass of students, it is because earth, oceans and atmosphere all interact and, if we to understand the world we live in, we need to be much more integrated not only in research but in our student programs. Yes, that is the type of thing I am talking about.
Senator Carney: Do you think universities in British Columbia are doing enough of that, changing their internal product?
Mr. Birch: Mr. Jago's institution sets the standard for integrated programs.
Senator Carney: Can you give us an example?
Mr. Jago: I can give you many examples. Let me give you an example of an integrated program area and then its ability to respond to particular needs. We have a Faculty of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies. Within that faculty, there is forestry, biology, geology, geography and we have a major GIS lab on the campus. There are environmental studies, both on the social science side and the environmental science side. Resource-based recreation and tourism programs are all part of that mix. They are separate program units, but they draw upon the other programs to create an integrated program. You cannot do forestry without dealing with environmental issues, sustainability and recreational use of forests. Nor can you deal with forestry issues at UBC without dealing with First Nations issues. All of these are integrated. Students who graduate from our environmental planning program are accredited planners who can not only do land-use planning, they can deal with a whole range of related issues.
We are now dealing with the oil and gas industry in the Fort St. John area, where environmental assessment and environmental planning is a key need. We will be introducing, in cooperation with Northern Lights College, four new courses into the environmental planning program to make it specific to the needs of the oil and gas industry.
I am dealing with the Mining Association of British Columbia to look at adapting components of that program to their needs. The core is: What we do we do as educators. We teach people how to plan, how to communicate effectively and how to think critically. There is a core of science and social science subjects which can be adapted to meet the needs of specific industries.
I think universities get a bum rap when they are presented as being unresponsive. They are responsive, but we will not respond at the cost of sacrificing what is at the core of an EDUCATION, that is, basic science, basic literacy and basic communication skills. Those we will retain, but around that there can be a lot of adaptation. We are producing new graduates in new fields who are meeting new economic needs and the new program approvals is testimony to the dynamic nature of the university system in this province.
Senator Carney: I want to share with my colleagues the reason I was smiling about the Northern Lights College. When I was involved with the Distance EDUCATION project the college head, Barry Moore, was extremely innovative. He determined that Northern Lights College had a lot to offer male students, but not much to offer women. The only facility he had was a mobile dental technician trailer unit in which dental hygienists were trained. Basically, he cemented the trailer down into a foundation when he got to Northern Lights. He has trained almost every second person in the Fort St. John-Dawson Creek area in dental hygiene and shipped them all over the province. I am glad to see that spirit is still alive in the northern institutions.
Senator Perrault: On page 7 of the brief, in talking about cutting back on spending, you state:
We have done so by improving our productivity through increased enrolments, class sizes and cutting back on the range of services provided. At the same time as we've been asked to do more with less, our inflationary costs exacerbates the situation. There is only so much more productivity than can be achieved.
That is a rather disturbing analysis of the existing situation. Are the critics correct in stating that we have declining standards in our universities and colleges in British Columbia that are attributable to cutbacks?
Mr. Jago: You will probably want brief responses to that question from all three of us. We are locked in the situation right now where we cannot increase our funding for our core EDUCATION operations, where we are required to take in more students, and where our costs are increasing. In that situation we are saying very clearly to the provincial government that standards will deteriorate.
In the MacLean's rankings the institutions in this province rate very well. We have attained a very high standard. We are keen not to sacrifice that, but we are fearful that a prolongation of this current situation will bring about deterioration. Currently, the pressures and strains are very real, however, I do not think we have reached the point yet that significant deterioration has set in. We are warning that it could easily happen.
Senator Perrault: If there is only one recommendation that this committee can make, it would be that we institute a process where the never-ending wrangling can be ended. You are pressing for dialogue rather than wrangling. How would you go about achieving peace in our time?
Mr. Jago: In the federal system in Canada there will never be peace in our time. I am a pessimist on that. I would strongly emphasize that the federal government has a role. It is a role of bringing the provinces together and ensuring that there is a national sense of purpose in EDUCATION and research. It is not strictly a provincial matter and we do not confine ourselves to a provincialist viewpoint. The federal government has a strong role to play, and that may lead to more controversy, but I would welcome the controversy if the government were to state that EDUCATION is of national concern. The statistics my colleague presented to you underline the fact that EDUCATION is a national concern.
Senator Perrault: Is registration in universities and colleges in British Columbia up this year over last year in all cases?
Mr. Birch: Yes, it is. In the University of British Columbia the undergraduate level is up 6 per cent over the previous year.
Senator Perrault: Is that generally the same for all institutions?
Mr. Birch: Yes.
Senator Perrault: Are talented young people being denied entry into our universities because they do not have the financial capacity to attend?
Mr. D. Goard, Secretary, University Presidents' Council of British Columbia: Because of the variety of options, talented young students who would have to travel a distance to come to university, can access their academic program at a community college. The critical factor is how many will eventually graduate. According to the statistics provided by Dr. Birch, the number of degrees by population is down. In our system, although students have access, they might not graduate. That is something we will have to consider.
Mr. Birch: Howard Petch, the long-time president of the University of Victoria, engaged in a passionate crusade throughout his time as president for opportunities for the young people of British Columbia to participate in and graduate from university. We have moved a considerable distance in providing greater equality of opportunity. Until relatively recently, if you lived outside the Lower Mainland, or Victoria on Vancouver Island, your chances of participating in Post-Secondary education were cut in half. Travelling around the province you will find, repeated in each region, a heartland and a hinterland with a participation rate that is half the level in the hinterland than in the heartland.
Senator Perrault: Accessibility?
Mr. Birch: Exactly.
Senator Perrault: Do you think the electronic revolution, as it relates to the transmission of information between one university and another, one college and another, threatens the jobs of EDUCATIONal professionals?
Mr. Jago: I see it as labour intensive and investment intensive, and I see it possibly changing the role of educators, but I do not see it causing significant displacement.
Mr. Birch: We are rposting numbers in various programs through attrition. For a program such as mining and mineral process engineering, which we maintain at UBC, the cost per student is at least three times as high as it is in electrical engineering because it is a modest-sized program with a small faculty. It is barely viable. The University of Alberta has an even smaller program. With the emerging technology we will be able to have a program on mining and mineral process engineering being delivered from a variety of different sites and, as a result, there will be better teamwork across institutions.
I am finding at UBC -- and I know it is true in the other institutions in this province -- that the willingness to collaborate with other institutions throughout western Canada and across the border with the University of Washington is rposting duplication and providing enhanced, more viable programs. Collaboration is increasing rapidly.
Senator Perrault: Did Queen's University clear it with you before they launched their advertising program?
Mr. Birch: We knew they were doing this. There are dozens of MBA programs available by Distance EDUCATION in this province. Queen's University is one of the participants. The program they provide is a niche program, a small, focused, full-cost recovery program. It is a good program, as is the one provided by Western in Ontario.
Senator Perrault: It takes on the dimension of wading in someone else's territory.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: I was surprised to hear that colleges you designated as university colleges were granting Bachelor's degrees. A university, in order to give out accreditations such as a Bachelor of Arts degree, must meet certain conditions. Have conditions been established for those colleges? If not, you risk the depreciation of university degrees.
Mr. Birch: That is clearly a concern. The conditions were established with four of the five university colleges seven or eight years ago whereby degrees were offered in collaboration with the universities. They were joint ventures. For the Bachelor of Science and Bachelor of Arts degree in Kelowna and the University College of the Cariboo in Kamloops, UBC joined with them for six or seven years and all of the faculty appointments, the approval and policies governing the degree were jointly arrived at and were approved through UBC's senate. We have reached agreements concerning an orderly move towards independence. We have now reached a point where they are anxious to offer many more majors, and the province has established a degree program review committee which is carefully reviewing those. That is a very useful process.
There is a fear about depreciating the "currency" but in, general, it has moved forward in a fairly orderly way. However, you must remember that was built on 20 or 25 years of offering the first two years of those degrees in the colleges. Therefore, there is a good foundation, as well as collaboration with the universities.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Having vested those colleges with a university vocation, do you believe that it has made university training more easily available to a larger number of people?
Mr. Birch: The number of students who begin an arts degree at the Okanagan University College is as many now as at the University of Victoria. It has made it much more available. The fact that they can complete a degree there has made their first and second year enrolment much more viable. It has made it much more accessible.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Is it a model that has been followed by other provinces? Every province has its remote areas.
Mr. Jago: The Association of the Universities and Colleges of Canada recently admitted into membership the University College of the Cariboo, which is the first of these university colleges to become a member of the association. It is not the first of that type of institute to become a member of the association. The earlier example is the University College of Cape Breton. The scale of the university college institution in British Columbia is quite remarkable and exceptional. It certainly has made university EDUCATION far more widely available than it was previously.
Mr. Birch: The availability of the emerging technologies has enhanced the quality. Senator Carney was away ahead of her time in leading Distance EDUCATION in this province. Today, the courses available on the world-wide web enable the students in Kamloops to take an advanced computer science course developed at UBC or one of the other institutions, but in this case UBC, and to enhance the quality of their program overall with a range of courses that could not have been made available in one place.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: You say the rposttion in federal transfer payments has had an adverse effect on the Post-Secondary education. How serious has the effect of this rposttion been on research? In terms of research and development the federal government has been an important player. If we make a recommendation in this regard, we would like to be precise. I do not know how serious the problem is and what steps should be taken in that area.
Mr. Jago: We fully endorse the proposals that have come forward from the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. Our member institutions have been very active in putting together those proposals. They reflect our concern with the cutbacks in the federal granting agencies and with the federal support for research. We do see the research mandate as both provincial and federal. The federal government has a legitimate role to play in research funding. UBC is a research-intensive university. However, we all have significant engagement in research. For a university such as UBC, which is an international leader in research, federal support is absolutely fundamental.
Mr. Birch: One specific request would be to reinforce the interest of the federal government in the research infrastructure program. The leverage that can be obtained by supporting that, with the insistence that the provinces also support it and that there be contributions from the private sector, will multiply the impact.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: I do not want to come back to the whole discussion of the need to have a clearly defined national policy and that the federal government has a responsibility. Since you have made suggestions to us, may I make one to you? Why is the initiative not coming from the universities themselves by putting forward a proposal and approach that would leave governments out of it? If the universities would agree amongst themselves that they want to do that, it would be much more easily sold to everyone.
Mr. Jago: The universities, through the AUCC, have taken a strong leadership role in this area. We are saying that it is not a matter that can be left to the universities. Higher EDUCATION is a matter of greater public concern. It is certainly a matter for provincial leaders. It is also a matter for the federal government. It is a matter for our governments to work effectively together. What we are looking for is an effective partnership of the various levels of government and the universities. That does happen in a number of ways now. Recently, the AUCC has taken a strong initiative in indicating what the federal role might be. The research infrastructure program or the recent document on student assistance are only two examples of AUCC taking the initiative. We still need governments to respond and assume a level of responsibility.
The Chairman: Thank you, Dr. Jago, Dr. Birch and Dr. Goard for your excellent papers.
We will now call upon the Confederation of Alberta Faculty Associations, Dr. Szostak and Mr. Meech. We look forward to hearing your presentations.
Dr. R. Szostak, President, Confederation of Alberta Faculty Associations: Mr. Chairman, honourable senators, The Confederation of Alberta Faculty Associations would like to express its deepest thanks to you for undertaking this study. We represent 4,000 faculty members at five universities in the Province of Alberta. The quality of advanced EDUCATION in that province has suffer greatly over the last couple of years. Our institutions experienced a 20 per cent cut in their budgets over a period of three years. That had the inevitable effect of increased class size. When I send students to the library they cannot find any recent publications. This is at the University of Alberta which still has one of the biggest university libraries in the country. I shudder to think what is going on in other institutions.
In 1985, the ratio of academic staff to students in Alberta universities was one to 12. This year it is one to 18. Students inevitably lose their access, they do not have as much time to talk to professors, and they do not have as many librarians to consult in the library.
In addition to the problems of funding rposttions and tuition increases that others have talked about, in Alberta, we have also seen some government actions that threaten the economy of our universities in a very peculiar way. We would certainly argue that there is a very important role for government in EDUCATION, but the particular path the Alberta government seems to be following, with very precise performance indicators, seems to us to be a threat which will even further degrade the quality of EDUCATION in Alberta. The easiest things to measure are the cost per student and how many students you can run through your doors and back out the other side. There is very little in the way of a quality measurement in these performance indicators.
In Alberta the word "crisis" is not an overblown description. There are certainly serious problems. We have looked in vain to the federal government to step in and play a bigger role because it is important that they do so. We were quite delighted to hear that the Senate had undertaken this study.
I know you have all read our brief. I wish my students were always as diligent in doing their homework as the members of this committee have been. I have had the advantage of watching the last presentations.
The Government of Alberta has often compared our institutions to those in other provinces. However, we have been able to point out that we have gone from being amongst the best institutions in the country to being amongst the worst funded, and that that has had obvious effects on the quality of our teaching. A more important comparison must be kept in mind, and that is a comparison with what is going on south of the border. The Smith Commission in Ontario devoted some of its attention to that comparison and came up with some rather shocking numbers. The one that leapt out at me was that, in Ontario, revenue per student was about three-quarters of what it is in the average American university.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: It is much more expensive in an American university than a Canadian one.
Mr. Szostak: In terms of?
Senator Lavoie-Roux: The value of the money and the cost of the fees. The fee cost is so much higher.
Mr. Szostak: I am not sure where the numbers came from. However, I do know that when we go out and try to hire people it is difficult to lure people away from the United States, unless they have a strong desire to live in Canada. Our salaries are not at all competitive. That situation will worsen. While most Canadian provinces have been cutting back on their funding for post-secondary EDUCATION 40 of the 50 states have increased their funding over the last couple of years. That leads us to support the idea that Post-Secondary education in this country needs to be affordable, publicly funded and comprehensive. We are seeing dangerous signs that we are losing some or all three of these qualities in Alberta.
The Confederation resolutely believes that mobility of students is important in many ways. We do not have very much of it in Alberta. Approximately 90 per cent of Alberta students who go on to university do so in Alberta. That is rather unfortunate because students benefit from meeting people in other provinces. If we are to have national unity it is important that we know each other, and encouraging students to attend universities in other provinces is one way of doing that. Certainly we must discourage provincial governments from putting up barriers to the free flow of students.
We also support credit transferability. However, we are aware, like all good things, it can be taken too far. All our institutions struggle to maintain the quality of their programs and that forces them to put some restrictions on the credits they are willing to have transferred in. Nevertheless, it is clear that some institutions speak of protecting principles while they are merely trying to protect enrolment.
It has long been part of Canadian foreign policy to encourage students from some of the poorer countries in the world to attend our universities, yet there is very little direct funding from the federal government to the provinces to encourage them to do that. Since foreign aid is clearly a federal responsibility, and since our students would benefit from exposure to students from other countries, we would encourage some consideration of that aspect of the situation. The federal government should encourage the enrolment of poor students from Third World countries. There are lots of universities trying to bring in rich students from other countries and charge them full fees. That is a separate issue.
I will touch briefly on the matter of research, of which I heard very mention earlier. Economic theory clearly suggests that provincial governments have an unfortunate incentive to underfund research simply because, while many of the benefits are local, it is clear that scientific research flows fairly easily across provincial borders. There is this horrible temptation of provincial governments to feel they can sit back, underfund research, and benefit from the research done in other provinces. While research also flows across international borders, the incentive for the federal government to underfund research is much less.
Among the many goals outlined in Senator Bonnell's original briefing notes for this committee, we think research is an important issue that this committee should consider within its purview. The real and perhaps the clearest argument for a federal role in terms of research is that, presently, it is seriously underfunded in Canada. The provincial governments do not seem to be on the verge of dramatically increasing funding. The federal government seems to be the most likely source. Everyone talks about how important research is to our future, but very few people are coming up with the money for it.
Today there has been discussion about the ideal role for the federal government. According to our constitution, EDUCATION comes under provincial jurisdiction. However, since the Second World War, the federal government has recognized that it does have a role to play in Post-Secondary education, and it has used its spending power in that area. Unfortunately, unlike in other areas where the federal government has used its spending power, it has attached no standards to the money it passes over to the provinces. While we would like to see the transfers increased, it seems that, even with the existing transfers, a few strings could be attached to them so that the federal government could get more bang for its buck. There should be national standards. However, I certainly do not want the federal government to get into micromanagement and telling provinces what they should be teaching. If we believe it is a federal value that all students should be able to afford to go to university, just as it is our national value that everybody should have access to good health care, then we could make that a national standard and tie it to the transfers.
As to mobility, provinces should not be allowed to put artificial impediments in the way of mobility across provincial borders. We could even pass some standards of excellence. One of the previous speakers talked about credentials. We can at least ensure that, if we are giving money to provinces, they are paying people with the appropriate credentials to teach.
We emphasize research. Any institution that calls itself a university must conduct research. The federal government can play a legitimate role in ensuring that any institution it funds indirectly takes that seriously and makes research an important part of its mandate. We have also suggested some type of matching formula. Over the course of the day, there has been discussion about how, many times in the recent past, provincial governments have barely topped up the federal transfers. In some years, in some provinces, 80 per cent or 90 per cent of the funding of Post-Secondary education was coming from the federal government, with the provincial governments tagging on 5, 10 or 15 per cent and claiming all the credit for funding Post-Secondary education. Perhaps there should be some incentive for increased provincial funding.
Also of importance is the funding for the granting agencies which fund much of the research that goes on in our country. That funding has been rposted. The easiest plea is to ask that this funding be raised to the level it was at a couple of years ago. An incredible number of researchers in this country are working on research projects, the results of which would be very useful, but they require funding, and that is not forthcoming.
Another initiative has taken up a little of the slack, although it can never replace the money that goes directly through the granting agencies, and that is one by Citizenship and Immigration which launched an interesting program a year or two ago in cooperation with the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. A pot of money was set up for funding research on issues that were of great concern to the ministry. Other ministries of the federal government could be encouraged to do the same thing, that is, make agreements with the granting councils to stimulate research in areas related to important public policy concerns. Finally, we also agree with the previous presenters that there is a problem in infrastructure in our universities, especially the infrastructure needed for research. There have been some rumours that we are on the verge of another infrastructure program. If so, universities are perhaps the best place to invest a big chunk of that money.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for an excellent brief. One of our questioners today is an old Albertan who is just waiting for his opportunity to ask some questions.
Senator Forest: Thank you very much, Rick. You have done your alma mater proud. I gather from what you said that you want to see a larger federal presence or participation and you are suggesting one way of doing that, along with added funding, is to have a set of guidelines such as those we have in health care so that, if we do not set national standards, we will at least have goals and objectives.
Mr. Szostak: Yes.
Senator Forest: Foreign students have always been a concern of mine. As a "have" country, we have an obligation to do something in that area. What is the percentage of foreign students now at the University of Alberta?
Mr. Szostak: At the undergraduate level it is a handful, a few per cent. I am told it is between 1 per cent and 2 per cent.
Senator Forest: It was 6 per cent 20 years ago. That is unfortunate.
Mr. Szostak: The university is making an effort to recruit students in Asia, with the intention of paying the full freight. However, we cannot lose sight of those students in Africa and Latin America who cannot afford to pay $20,000 to come to the University of Alberta.
Senator Forest: That is tied to our foreign aid and foreign policy.
With respect to research, there is no question that if something is not done soon we will be on the verge of losing a generation of researchers, and we must do something about that.
With respect to student mobility, what we have been doing at Faculté Saint- Jean has been a tremendous success. With the arrival of students from Quebec, instruction has been in French. I read in The Globe and Mail that there is an intention to institute a French quarter in Edmonton around Faculté Saint-Jean. That is a laudable objective.
I am glad the various associations have touched on the need for research infrastructure because I am most optimistic that something can be achieved in that area. It is an area in which the federal government can provide assistance without getting into a jurisdictional quarrel with the provinces. What would be the priorities with respect to research infrastructure?
Mr. Szostak: Depending on what discipline someone comes from, the priorities are different. In the hard sciences and engineering, often their desperate need is for machinery. A couple of years ago, our engineering students voted to increase their fees voluntarily in order to set up a special to buy machinery for the engineering faculty. They were tired of being taught on machines that were 10 years out of date. Certainly, if you ask engineers and scientists, they would say laboratory equipment was a big issue. Researchers like me, are most desperate to see the library not completely fall apart.
Senator Forest: For the arts and humanities, the priority would be library facilities.
Mr. Szostak: Yes.
Senator Andreychuk: One of the issues that we, as a committee, have to address is the need for research funding. I am sure the provinces would not disagree that research is a national issue, particularly in view of the cutbacks of funding from the national institutes. At another committee there was discussion about the competitive edge, globally, and value-added products resulting from the research done by the Research Council. I would echo the comments of Senator Forest that we should not be losing researchers but adding them if we want to succeed in the global market.
However, applied research seems to have more of a provincial base. For example, northern British Columbia deals with forestry, and Saskatchewan with grain, some transportation and potash. A lot of applied research is the result of the unique funding arrangement between business and universities. In my opinion, this is at the expense of basic research. When governments look at global figures they must also consider the figures for research. Do you believe the federal government should play an increased role in basic research and infrastructure funding should be targeted to that?
Since we are now going into much more creative applied research funding, do you have any comments on whether, from an ethics point of view, that strengthens a university or detracts from it? We are struggling with a code of ethical guidelines for research that is funded by corporations.
Mr. Szostak: It is important that universities do both basic and applied research. One of my research interests is the history of technology. It has been popular for historians of technology to point out that, whereas we always tended to believe that science came first and technology followed, in fact if history is studied closely it will be seen that many important scientific inventions were offshoots of technological developments. In the 19th century many experiments in chemistry were conducted to try to figure out why certain dyes held and others did not, and there were many offshoots from that.
To push the research engine forward, some people in universities should be doing the most basic and esoteric research without any practical implications in mind, and the same people, or perhaps different people, should be doing applied research to determine if these scientific developments have some practical application. At the same time, on that borderline of technology, they can determine what problems exist in the real world and feed that information back to the basic scientists. We need that flow of information. We need to do both basic and applied research. A university that did only basic research or a university that only did applied research would be making a mistake.
You are correct that provincial governments are much more likely to see advantages in funding applied research which might benefit their local industries. You are also correct in that the federal government has more slack to pick up in terms of funding basic research. As for the dangers inherent in that, they depend on a number of things. I have been to conferences where academics have expressed concern about a corporate takeover by universities. Given my view that some applied research is valuable, it comes down to a question of how much of it is valuable.
It is absolutely vital that we have core funding of curiosity-driven research coming through our granting councils. If we ever lose that in our universities, we will be are in real trouble. Having a little bit of corporate-funded research is not a problem.
Senator Andreychuk: What about guidelines, a code of ethics at the national level?
Senator Lavoie-Roux: It can also be done at the university level.
Mr. Szostak: The three granting councils have been getting together on codes of ethics which will govern those who receive their grants. Most universities also have their own codes of ethics. The problem with codes of ethics is that you have to enforce them, and what a researcher does in his or her laboratory may not always be quite as easy to keep track of as one might think.
Senator Andreychuk: You have expressed your concern about funding for foreign students from poorer countries. One of my areas of interest is foreign students. If foreign students can pay their own way, that certainly helps the universities and the country, but many universities are going the other way and are branching out into other countries. They are placing students both in Third World and more developed countries. For example, Malaysia has branches of American and German universities.
To what extent do you support that? Do you see that as a method of resolving some of the issues respecting foreign students?
Mr. Szostak: Most of my knowledge comes from a trip I took with my wife to Malaysia and Thailand a couple of years ago when we saw signs of this happening. To some extent, it strikes me as similar to what is being done in universities and colleges in Alberta and B.C. in trying to allow students to take the first year or two of their university degree in some local college, rather than having to go to the big city. My understanding of these programs in Southeast Asia is that they allow students to take their first year or two years of university at home, where obviously it is a lot cheaper for them, while having close ties with some university in North America.
The whole problem with transferability of credits is that the receiving institution has to make sure that the sending institution is teaching the right curriculum or the students will fail when they move on. If my understanding is correct, then, properly done, it can work very well. If some of the basic subjects for the first year are identified, and there are people in those countries who can teach them to the level our students at home learn, then it will work. It becomes a farce if the sending institutions are unable to keep up.
Senator Andreychuk: If we want to globalize, if we want to go into those countries to do business, we have to understand them. If we are going to be global traders we must understand the language and cultures of other countries, and foreign students have much to offer in that regard.
Mr. Szostak: One of the benefits that is often forgotten is that, when those students attain degrees from our institutions and then return to their countries, they generally go back with fond thoughts of Canada and they become our country's friends there. There are people strewn around the whole who owe their success in life to the EDUCATION they got at the University of Alberta. When our president visits their country, they shower him with gifts.
It is another investment in the future. It is not just foreign aid, it is something we will benefit from down the road.
The Chairman: Senator Lavoie-Roux.
[Translation]
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I seem to recall that this is a bilingual country with two official languages. I will put my question to you slowly.
While travelling with another committee in Western Canada, I was quite surprised when the only person who spoke to us in perfect French turned out to be a Dutch physician. This happened in Saint-Boniface near Winnipeg. I see that at the University of Edmonton, there is a French faculty.
Mr. Szostak: Yes, Faculté Saint-Jean.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: How many students are enrolled in this faculty, compared to the overall student population?
Mr. Szostak: The faculty has an enrolment of 400 students.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Four hundred students? What is the university's overall student population?
Mr. Szostak: I believe it is 30,000.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Then they account for only a fraction of the overall population. Of these 400 students, how many come from Quebec? What percentage of the student population do they represent?
Mr. Szostak: I believe half of the faculty's students are from Quebec.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: You talk about mobility. We saw what happened in Quebec and we know that this will likely decrease the mobility of students from other provinces. If students no longer go to Quebec, you will see more of them staying here. What kind of tuition fees do students from other provinces pay compared to students from Alberta?
[English]
Mr. Szostak: Right now there are no differential fees in Alberta. They pay the same fees as students from Alberta.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: My other questions I will not ask inFrench because it will be too complicated.
Mr. Szostak: My wife is a graduate of Faculté Saint-Jean so I know a lot of this anecdotally from her.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Perhaps you should speak French to her this evening.
Mr. Szostak: We are on the verge of having our first child and she has told me that, if I want to speak to our first child, I will have to speak to him in French, so I am trying to learn as fast as possible. Certainly, many francophones from Quebec come out here with a very set idea in their minds of what Edmonton will be like. Their first shock is to find that there are francophones in Edmonton. Then they discover the many nuances of life out here, and some of them actually stay. My wife's view is that, at the very least, they go back to Quebec with a better view of the rest of Canada.
[Translation]
Senator Lavoie-Roux: I think that nationwide exchanges and student mobility is an excellent thing.
[English]
Senator Forest: Two of our children graduated from Faculté Saint-Jean. They had a very good relationship with the Quebec students. I think it is a marvellous opportunity.
[Translation]
Senator Lavoie-Roux: You refer on page 5 of your brief to the role of the federal government in Post-Secondary education.
[English]
We are absolutely convinced that the continuing involvement of the federal government in Post-Secondary education is to the benefit of Canadians everywhere; we would like to see it both reviewed and strengthened; indeed, we would like to see it embedded in federal legislation. Our history shows over and over again that it is the federal government's initiatives that have spurred the development of our universities and our national research endeavours.
I might be in agreement with the second part, the research, but I do not see that the federal government has been such a spark plug.
Mr. Szostak: My historical expertise relates to an earlier period, but my understanding is that, in the 1950s and 1960s when the federal government started transferring monies to the provinces, it was because it was felt that there were insufficient spaces. They recognized that the rather small universities we had in place in the 1950s were nowhere near enough to get us through. I do not know, but perhaps the provincial governments would have done that in any event. It was certainly a cooperative endeavour. Nonetheless, decades ago the federal government put money in. Perhaps you and I learned a different historical background in school.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: I think so. I know in Quebec, that McGill was started by the McGill family; and l'université Laval by the church. Maybe it is different in some other provinces.
Mr. Szostak: Even McGill and Laval grew. If one compares their size in the 1950s to their size in the 1970s, one will see that they grew dramatically at exactly the same time that the federal government started pumping lots of money into the provinces. In the same period, the Université fu Québec system was set up as was Sherbrooke. Even there the statement may hold, but I would not pass myself off as an expert in history. I believe Allan wrote that sentence.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: In the brief you also clearly state what areas you would like to see embedded in federal legislation. You mention assistance, student mobility, and academic transferability. Since we know that universities are easily teased about their autonomy, how would you feel about the federal government making decisions as to academic transferability?
Mr. Szostak: That is clearly the trickiest issue. A moment ago the presenters from B.C. talked about their transfer mechanism. We have a similar one in Alberta which involves thousands of entries in a little book, and that has taken years of negotiations. Again, it seems desirable. In my economics department we sometimes wonder whether all of the colleges are teaching the correct principles of economics and we sometimes complain about the students who come to us. We attract students who started out in Saskatchewan and in B.C., so we certainly hope this system will be extended across provincial borders. However, the part of me that sits in on economic department council meetings cringes at some of the agreements we have reached with the colleges. I worry about going too far down this road.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Would you accept, for instance, that the federal government could be instrumental in encouraging the universities of the various provinces discuss that issue and that the decision should come from the universities themselves and, if need be, it could be embedded in federal legislation? If it is done the opposite way, it could lead to war.
Mr. Szostak: It is fairly easy to define a standard and enforce it. However, this would be a fuzzy definition of a belief in transferability and how the federal government might actually wield a stick over the provincial governments. In that sense, I am a little less sure of how easy it will be to define and enforce.
Senator Perrault: Mr. Chairman, there is some excellent material in this brief. It will take time to absorb it all. Implicit in the brief is criticism of both levels of the government for not providing enough money to do the job that you believe should be done. That is a perfectly legitimate criticism. Have you recently sought and been granted an audience with Premier Klein to discuss this matter with him?
Mr. Szostak: CAFTA was designed as a provincial lobbying group and, yet, our members were unanimous that we should speak to this committee.
Senator Perrault: Because it is important.
Mr. Szostak: As to approaching Premier Klein, we focused our attention more on his Minister of Advanced EDUCATION and the members of that department. The student groups have better access to the Premier than we do, but they have not been able to achieve much in the way of recognition that there is a problem.
Senator Perrault: Is there any recent evidence that he may ease the thumbscrews after this difficult period?
Mr. Szostak: Yes. We are in one of those lucky periods in Alberta where the resource revenues have sky-rocketed again and the government is looking for places to spend it. That will likely encourage some reinvestment. As we discussed earlier, the crisis in our health care system has received much more press than the crisis in our Post-Secondary education system, so we may find ourselves second in line. We are, however, better placed than people in Alberta who are on welfare. They have received no press whatsoever and they have also suffered.
Senator Perrault: In your initial remarks you suggested that the library budget had been curtailed to scholarly disadvantage. Was there a cutback or just a freeze in your library budget?
Mr. Szostak: There was a 20 per cent cut in the budget to universities. I think every university in the province first of all cut back on administration costs more than they cut back on teaching, and then they made a special effort to shield the libraries. There have been cuts, but they have not been 20 per cent cuts to the libraries. Over the last few years, the cost of academic journals has been sky-rocketing, so even if our budget had stayed the same, our ability to buy books would have been diminishing.
Senator Perrault: Book costs are just enormous, are they not?
Mr. Szostak: Yes.
Senator Perrault: Is electronic information being accessed that otherwise might have only been available through books and at a higher cost?
Mr. Szostak: Certainly some information from that source is being used. Many journals are now available on the net, so that could bring about an important change. Very few publishers put their books on the net. However, in a field such as mine, books are essential.
Senator Perrault: There never will be a substitute for a book.
Mr. Szostak: I hope not. I certainly do not want to sit in front of my computer screen for the hours I spend reading in a day.
Senator Perrault: It would be an unbearable eye strain in addition to everything else.
Alberta and B.C. are extremely well positioned to realize some of the advantages of our expanding trade with the Pacific Rim.
Mr. Szostak: Yes.
Senator Perrault: Did you comment on the availability of language training to win some of those market opportunities for your companies, in other words, a practical way to bring greater revenues to Alberta?
Mr. Szostak: No. Again, getting back to the fact that provincial governments tend to be most easily excited about applied research in the sciences, the case that we have been trying to make in Alberta is exactly that, a general case for the liberal arts side of the university. Our government sells us on the idea that we should teach people to speak Japanese so that they can communicate in Japan. The same applies to Chinese. At the University of Alberta we have a fairly vibrant East Asian studies group that teaches, among other things, those languages.
Senator Perrault: Yes, I heard that.
Mr. Szostak: Yes, that is the sort of argument that can sell and does sells in Alberta. When I fly home over the mountains, I am always surprised that we are considered a Pacific Rim province, but there we are.
Senator Perrault: You have called for some tax rposttions and some tax relief, which I find an attractive idea. Have you put a price tag on that?
Mr. Szostak: I have not. The national consortium came out with a document that suggested a whole host of changes. I again emphasize that, while I think some important tax changes can be put in place in terms of RESPs, those will largely help the children of fairly well-off people go to university. I would hate to see us decide we have $200 million to spend, and then spend it all on tax breaks for the rather well-off members of Canadian society.
Senator Perrault: That is not your top priority, but that is a priority?
Mr. Szostak: It is certainly among the package of things that should be done but I would hate to be the only thing that was done.
Senator Perrault: If you were part of our committee, what would your number one recommendation be? Would it relate to student fees? We cannot deal with everything simultaneously.
Mr. Szostak: I believe that, if the right institutions are put in place, over time, policy will move in the right direction. I believe in national standards. That is why we spent a lot of time on it in the brief. We desperately need money. We are now at the stage where, if the provincial government throws us a dime, we will thank them kindly for it. However, in the long run, having some national standards, giving the federal government some ability to actually push provinces in the right direction, would be the best thing.
Senator Perrault: We are running into cutback problems in British Columbia in the same manner. We are fighting for some relief.
Finally, a question I should not ask: How many honorary degrees has your premier received from the university this year? Is it anticipated he will receive any?
Mr. Szostak: Our university has taken care of that problem. The university senate now has a rule that they will not give honorary degrees to sitting politicians.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: That is a good idea.
Senator Perrault: Good idea.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Perrault. We are running half an hour over time. I would thank our witnesses from Alberta. We did consider asking you to come to Ottawa but assumed you would find it easier cross the mountains. We appreciate your remarks. If you have any further information which you believe will assist us, our clerk will be pleased to receive it.
We now have with us Ms Margaret Hildebrand from Alberta. I would thank Ms Doreen Godwin, who volunteered to give up her time so Ms Hildebrand could give evidence before she has to catch a plane back to Alberta. Please proceed, Ms Hildebrand.
Ms Margaret Hildebrand, Executive Assistant, Council of Presidents (Alberta Colleges): Mr. Chairman, honourable senators, it is a pleasure to be here and I would like to extend the regrets of the chairman of the Council of Presidents, Dr. Dan Cornish, who is unable to be here because he had to be in Ottawa. I am trying to fill his shoes but they are, indeed, large shoes to fill.
I would like to take a moment to acquaint you with the Council of Presidents, as well as the public colleges and technical institute system in Alberta.
The Council of Presidents is a provincial body representative of Alberta's 17 public colleges and technical institutes. These 17 institutions include 11 public colleges, four vocational colleges, and two technical institutes. The system serves approximately 43,000 full-time students, 29,000 to 30,000 part-time credit students, 12,000 apprentices and about 150,000 registrants in non-credit programs. It is a significant portion of Alberta's post-secondary system.
Under the authority of both the Colleges Act and the Technical Institutes Act in Alberta, a comprehensive range of programs is offered at these institutions. It is part of the requirement to receive funding. At the public colleges, for instance, they include one-year certificate programs, two-year career diploma programs, compensatory programs such as English as a second language, adult literacy, adult upgrading programs, university transfer, continuing EDUCATION and community service programs, brokered degree completion, which we heard referenced earlier, as well as Applied Bachelors degrees and post-diploma programs.
What is now happening in Alberta with greater frequency is that the colleges are now receiving tremendous numbers of applications from students who already have university degrees. For example, Mount Royal College in Calgary, a year ago September, had over 100 applications from students who already have a Bachelors degree. Many of the colleges and universities now are looking at shared programs so that when a student graduates he could, in effect, have a degree and a diploma. We are seeing greater collaboration amongst the institutions.
The colleges and technical institutes have played a significant role in the economic development of Alberta, and research in that province indicates that, over the next decade, approximately 65 per cent of our work force will require some post-secondary qualifications and, of that, approximately 50 per cent will require certificates and diplomas from colleges and technical institutes and 15 per cent will require degrees. The career-oriented programs have tremendous success in terms of students finding employment.
Consistently, I believe, all institutions have registered above a 90-per-cent employment rate and that is becoming, dare I say, a key performance indicator measure in the province of Alberta and elsewhere.
For your consideration, the council would like to identify a few issues. I know that you are familiar with the knowledge-based society and the rapid progression of change. In this rapid change, this new information age, information becomes a strategic resource. I like the way Peter Drucker argues the point when he says that productivity of knowledge has already become the key to productivity, competitive strength and economic achievement; and that knowledge has become the primary industry, the industry that supplies essential and central resources of production.
I would like to highlight the most salient points from the viewpoint of the council, and their recommendations. The Council of Presidents believes that in this global economic environment our economic future can only be ensured through significant commitment to knowledge creation, research and development, and a highly skilled, adaptable and more autonomous work force. EDUCATION and training are essential to personal, provincial and national prosperity. I think there will be no argument with those points. This provides the context in which the other recommendations are built.
In terms of human resource development in this new economic environment, this knowledge-based society, EDUCATION and training will continue to provide a means for all Canadians to achieve their personal objectives. The council believes, however, that EDUCATION and training must concurrently play a greater role in developing human resources to meet the needs of our economic development. The Council of Presidents endorses the position that EDUCATION and training must be explicitly linked both to the future needs of the individual and to the onward economic and human resource needs of this country.
In an information age, we must all have a commitment to lifelong learning, but it becomes apparent that, while many large companies are committed to and fund training for their employees, smaller and medium-sized businesses in Canada do not have a training culture. The training culture and commitment to lifelong learning must be established and facilitated, and governments must play a leading role in instilling this training culture.
There is a need for society and individuals to regard EDUCATION and training as an investment rather than an expenditure. Thus, the Council of Presidents emphasizes that EDUCATION is a lifelong process and that today there is every reason for all parties committed to adult learning to work together in new ways on behalf of all learners.
All levels of government must have significant roles to play in instilling a training culture in businesses of all sizes. Alberta has been very fortunate, particularly their colleges and technical institutes who have had successful partnerships with business and industry. One of those programs is the Cooperative Program which has proved to be very successful in adding that practical marketplace component to a student's EDUCATION.
The council does believe that the private sector has a role to assume greater responsibility for investing in human resource development and to become more involved in the financing of these programs because, in essence, this is their work force. Their work force is being trained by the public system and I believe the general perception would be that they have some responsibility in financing many of the programs in the public sector.
The Council of Presidents therefore encourages the government of Canada to support partnerships through such measures as matching grants and tax incentives to encourage businesses of all sizes to develop regular partnerships with public colleges and as well with Post-Secondary education institutions in general.
You have heard a lot about the portability of credits and the development of national standards. It is also an issue with which the Council of Presidents is very much concerned. The geographic and social mobility which characterizes contemporary life makes academic transfer an important entitlement. No program of study should be regarded as a disablement for further study, nor seen as a valueless basis of study in a different field or at a more advanced level. Recognition of prior learning through an established system for testing acccepted levels of competencies and recognition of those competencies, however they have been acquired, will permit both portability of credits and credentials across institutions across provinces and subsequently shorten required study periods. The Council of Presidents submits that there is a need for the identification of the need for greater portability of credentials and earned credits across the nation.
At the same time, the council calls for the continued development, implementation and expansion of national standards of excellence at all levels and in all areas of EDUCATION and training. Such standards could provide an output mechanism against which all graduates could be measured. As an aside which might be of interest, the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology in Calgary is now offering guarantees with several of their programs. If an employer finds that any graduate of that program is deficient in any competencies, that institution will retrain that student at no cost in order to ensure that all competencies are met. Graduates now come with a guarantee, and that will expand greatly in the province of Alberta over the next couple of years.
The public colleges and technical institutes are the primary formal EDUCATION deliverer of apprenticeship training, with roughly 12,000 full-time apprenticeships in the province. The Council of Presidents recognizes the value of an effective apprenticeship system and encourages greater participation throughout Canada in such learning programs. Apprenticeship should expand the Red Seal program or equivalent, thus ensuring portability of credits.
The Council of Presidents also recommends that apprentices who have been laid off by their employers be encouraged to cycle into a training component or other indentured program. The people I know who are involved in apprenticeship training are very supportive of the Red Seal program. In terms of national portability of credentials, it is a model that could be examined more closely. It allows for people holding that credential to move freely across this province and practice their trade accordingly, to the benefit of the individual, the employer, and to society.
Senator Forest: Could you just elaborate on exactly what the Red Seal program is?
Ms Hildebrand: My understanding is that it is a set of exams in certain trades which are offered nationally. Apprentices who have finished their journeyman level of training can take these exams and, whether they are written in Alberta or Ontario or Prince Edward Island, once they have successfully completed that exam, they have a Red Seal credential. This allows the apprentice to practise his or her trade anywhere in this country without further qualification or requirements from the province in which he or she is seeking employment.
Senator Andreychuk: I understand this was set up through the co-operation of provinces, with some federal leadership.
Ms Hildebrand: Exactly. I believe there was federal leadership.
The council believes very strongly that there is a need to continue to "internationalize" EDUCATION and training in Canada. Canadians must learn to appreciate the value of international EDUCATION, both through acceptance of greater numbers of foreign students and support for more Canadian students to study abroad.
Post-secondary institutions must increase student exposure to international studies through enhanced program curricula. Accordingly, the Council of Presidents believes that internationalization of EDUCATION is an important investment for Canada and should be supported with grants, scholarships and bursary incentives.
This is a huge opportunity for increased trade. We have developed some exceptional programs and, certainly, there is that opportunity to trade, to sell, and to export many of those programs and services abroad. There also is a need to balance the drive to attract many international students because they are sometimes seen as a cash cow. Many pay two and three times the fees paid by Canadians. I would like to think that internationalization has a greater value than simply revenue generation. As institutions increase the drive to attract those students there is a tremendous need for student support services. If we are to provide services for those foreign students, we must not only look at their pocket-book but we must also develop and provide the support services which so many of them require when they come to this country.
The committee heard from the previous speakers from the province of Alberta that, since 1994, the institutions have had a 21 per cent rposttion in grant funding. Concurrent with that was the expectation that there would be 10,000 new seats made available in post-secondary institutions. That presented a great challenge. I believe that the institutions faced those restraints with significant effort and subsequent success. Of course, I speak of the colleges and technical institutes. It has been a struggle, but the majority of them would say that greater collaboration and greater efficiencies have certainly been achieved through that exercise. It is not to say it has not been without pain, but there have been some positive results.
As to changes to tuition fee policy in Alberta, the tuition fees for foreign students were allowed to double and tuition revenue was raised to 30 per cent, with a provision that it cannot be reached before the year 2000. Post-secondary students are expected to shoulder a greater proportion of their costs of EDUCATION and, as you are all aware, many will leave those programs with substantial debt.
The Council of Presidents would encourage the Government of Canada to initiate modifications to the student loan program to accommodate these increased costs and to implement income contingent and student debt relief programs.
The council would like to commend the position on student debt relief submitted by the Association of Canadian Community Colleges. There are a couple of other ideas that we think have merit such as interest paid on student loans possibly being carried forward. Once a student is employed, then those dposttions are of greater value. They could be, as I say, tax dposttible but carried forward to the time of employment.
The council also encourages changes which would include the lifelong learner, and supports the provision for grants to disadvantaged students. The council also feels it is essential that the federal government maintains the EDUCATION and tuition fee tax credits and the charitable donations tax credit in order to encourage investment in EDUCATION and training.
The final point deals with learning at a distance. I know there is considerable interest in the use of advanced technologies. Certainly, there has been an increase in the demand for EDUCATION, training and retraining, both quantitative and qualitative. This demand has resulted from the broader realization that more and better learning is required for success in the new knowledge-based society. Part of the increased demand can be met through the utilization of advanced technologies, simply because it overcomes the impediments of time, space and distance.
In Alberta, the Department of Advanced EDUCATION and Career Development has committed $10 million a year for the next three years to enhance technology integration in the province. The council is appreciative of that effort. It is a good start. However, there is obviously a need for additional resources, particularly to put the technology in place, and perhaps even more important is the need to do research and development in the use of those technologies and to determine what is the most effective way of using those technologies in effective learning, both in the gaining and the retention of knowledge.
The council therefore seeks governmental leadership and financial assistance with the cost of establishing an electronic highway and redesigning courses of study for delivery at a distance. An investment in these new EDUCATIONal tools will increase accessibility to EDUCATIONal opportunities and improved learning models for all Canadians.
Honourable senators, that is the submission on behalf of the Council of Presidents. I do not believe we have stated anything very revolutionary, but we are very supportive of this task force. We make this submission with due humility. Thank you for this opportunity. I would be happy to answer any questions.
The Chairman: You have no need to be humble because you presented an excellent brief. We appreciated it very much. Our senator from Alberta is most anxious to ask you some questions. I noticed she interrupted from time to time during your submission.
Senator Forest: I represent Alberta in the Senate.
You mentioned the flow of students from university to college. Can you give me an example of a degree diploma program?
Ms Hildebrand: By way of example, Lethbridge Community College and the University of Lethbridge have a conjoint program in environmental studies. By the time students graduate they have effectively completed two years of study in each institution.
Senator Forest: That is interesting. I was also interested in the figure that 90 per cent of the college technical school graduates are employed. We are getting to the point now where Alberta is coming out of the recession. I have been told by people in business, particularly in construction, there is a dire shortage of engineering apprentices. With the cuts across the system, do you feel that you will be able to deal with a greater influx of students who will want to get into these programs now that jobs are in short supply?
Ms Hildebrand: Wherever there is a boom in the province of Alberta, and in the past few years it has been in the northwestern corner of the province, the student numbers in those institutions have gone down. It is so attractive for students to work on a high-paying job -- as part of a seismic crew, for instance -- that they delay their Post-Secondary education. Ultimately, things seem to balance out.
At the moment, in the northern part of the province, Syncrude and Suncor are involved in a huge expansion in the tarsands and they are looking for qualified tradesmen and various journeymen. The average age of the journeyman is now in excess of 50 years old, and there is a concern that there will be inadequate enrolment in the apprenticeship programs.
In an effort to bring those numbers up, there are several new youth apprenticeship programs in the high school system in Alberta. I do not believe that there is a crisis situation. The number of students has consistently increased. There probably will always be a field where there will be a shortage and there will be fields where there are excess, but they do seem to balance.
Senator Forest: I certainly agree with most of the premises in your paper. Our premier has often talked about the Alberta advantage, particularly as it relates to business settling in Alberta, but I would maintain that our greatest advantage is our human resources and if we do not start putting money back into our EDUCATIONal system soon, we will no longer have that advantage.
Ms Hildebrand: That is an extraordinarily insightful statement, and I would support it entirely.
Senator Carney: You mentioned earlier that there was enrolment of university graduates in vocational technical programs in Alberta.
Ms Hildebrand: Yes.
Senator Carney: The representatives of the University Presidents of British Columbia left with us a report on the economic benefits of post-secondary training and EDUCATION in B.C. as well as outcomes assessments, in which the authors point out that cross-enrolment goes both ways -- that while 4.9 per cent of the students in technical and vocational programs had university degrees, 7.8 per cent of students in universities had technical and vocational diplomas, showing that one cannot say that one area is more important than the other because people with vocational degrees are going to university, and people with university degrees are going vocational institutes. Is that the same in Alberta?
Ms. Hildebrand: I do not know have the percentages.
Senator Carney: There is such cross-enrolment?
Ms. Hildebrand: Absolutely. When we talk about transfer programs, the expectation is the transfer will be from a college to a university, but what is happening, more and more, is that students are transferring from a university to a college. There are huge numbers of college students in university transfer programs who are in first and second year of university. Another interesting area is the concerted effort towards the transferability of the two-year diploma program so that, if a student enters a career-based program, those credits are transferable to another program.
Senator Carney: From these figures, we cannot make the quick assumption that vocational and technical training is better for job opportunities than university training; is that correct?
Ms Hildebrand: I would not jump to that conclusion.
Senator Carney: The second interesting point here is that this B.C. study showed that women who enter the short-term, technical EDUCATION fields in B.C. get zilch for their effort in terms of wage premiums. On page 26, they state that, in respect of most technical training programs, in the case of women, the wage premium over simply finishing high school is non-existent. I wish to draw that to your attention because perhaps that gender bias is also evident in Alberta. It does not show up so much in university but in this particular study it shows that women in British Columbia do not benefit from having completed technical and vocational training.
Ms Hildebrand: That would be true of many of the programs in Alberta. In some of the highest paying programs such as aviation maintenance or petroleum engineering, the number of women in those programs is very small.
Senator Carney: However, even the ones who are in the programs do not benefit in job remuneration. It is an interesting aspect of this study. I wanted to know if that was the case in Alberta.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for appearing before our committee today.
Our next witnesses are from the Canadian Association for Cooperative EDUCATION. Ms Doreen Godwin gave up her place earlier so that Ms Hildebrand could catch her plane. We would thank her for doing that. With those few remarks, please proceed.
Ms Doreen Godwin, President, Canadian Association for Cooperative EDUCATION: I would like to thank the federal government for helping and encouraging cooperative EDUCATION to reach the levels it is at today. Studies show that the money has been well spent and that co-op graduates have higher self-esteem. One of the joys of being a practitioner is to see these students attain a remarkable level of self-confidence and self-esteem. It is a change that is wonderful to see. They enjoy higher employment levels and they have greater job satisfaction. In as particular study we conducted, we asked them to rank job satisfaction between one and 10. The non-co-op graduates ranked their first job at a level of three in satisfaction, and the co-ops at a level of seven. I found that very interesting and significant. It certainly does help to pay their way, and that was shown in the fact that they incurred lower debt levels.
Co-op students make use of the counselling services available to them. We get to know them and deal with questions they may have relating to family issues, course selection and everything that you can imagine. If we cannot handle a specific problem or issue, we direct the student to another counsellor where he can get that assistance.
They achieve higher academic completion levels and greater academic success. Co-op EDUCATION is still in its early stages. Our students find themselves in the unique situation of working in industry one day, and being students at university the next day. We are involved with the student in both situations.
We deal with reality. Even though a student has an A-plus record academically, he or she may not land a job because he or she has no people skills. We deal with the whole person.
Earlier there was mention of students with university degrees going to colleges. As you know, students going from college to university is the more standard approach. What I have found interesting is the number of university graduates going back and taking a second undergraduate degree. It first came to my attention when they were coming into my office and I asked why they were not out looking for a job. I was often told that they could not get a job, and that they wished to go into a co-op program. I did a little preliminary investigation and discovered that there are over 700 such students at SFU alone. I could not determine precisely how many of those had had co-op degrees but the best estimate I have is that it is less than 1 per cent. That is a tremendous waste of taxpayer's money, and of students' time and money. I believe that is what you are here to address.
What does co-op EDUCATION do? First, the curriculum is quite different from that of other programs. Students do not necessarily accept what is stated from the front of the room. I was delighted to have one professor tell me how much he had enjoyed teaching that particular course because the questions from the students had added so many new dimensions to the topic material.
The next area that is different is student course selection. I believe it is more flexible. For example, a student with a lot of ability in the sciences had been directed in that path. However, he got into a work situation involving business marketing people and he thoroughly enjoyed it. So much so, he changed his selection of courses which afforded him opportunities to explore more than one field.
Because of our close association, we have direct input from industry. We changed the language of one of our computing courses because of direct input. We added a new course in our communications program that addressed the issue of diverse communication needs for different communities. We reviewed and changed a whole stream in our kinesiology program because of the direct input from industry. Change can happen faster if the co-op input is utilized wisely.
As I mentioned earlier, we deal with reality. If a student has an unrealistic goal in light of what he is prepared to do, we are straightforward with him. We tell him what the realities are and that he either has to change his goal or make another choice. We are always there to assist students when they need help.
A student handing in his resume wanted to talk to me. He stated that he did not want to go out of town and did not want an end user job. I handed him back his resume and I walked back to my desk. He stood there looking very uncomfortable. Eventually, he mentioned the fact that I had not taken his resume. I told him that I knew of no company that would employ anyone who was picky. He then said that he could be more flexible, so I told him to sit down and I told him what he could and could not do and, if that did not suit him, he could leave. It was his choice. This was a shock to his system, but he recovered. His, eventually, was a success story.
Another student I labelled "the charmer". He was very used to getting his own way. I made it quite plain to him that I wanted facts, not to be charmed. I asked him what mark he expected to get on his courses and he quoted me a "B" average. I asked him to come back in so many weeks and show me his record. He came back and he had a B average. He graduated this year. He came and sought me out to tell me that he was shocked that I had pegged him. He did not believe he could ever get a B average but, because he had been challenged, he rose to the challenge. He is now employed in a very successful company.
There is also the other side. A student came to me who had been very successful in construction work but now was going for a university degree. He did not want to put the construction work on his resume. Eventually it came out that, of course, was blue collar work and he was moving into the white collar area. He believed that anyone who read his resume would look down on him. It took a lot of work to convince him that his working background could be an advantage. I am going to visit him at Statistics Canada in about two weeks. He sent me an e-mail stating that what I had told him really helped him to get the job and that his background was helping him on the job as well. He is on his way.
Shyness is perhaps our biggest problem. A student may really want a job but they sit there afraid to speak up for themselves. One particular student, who was invited for an interview, found herself reacting to the statement that she was not interested in the job. She suddenly realized that was the message she was giving, not that she was shy, not that she was scared, but that she was not interested.
These students come back and talk to our other students.
There is also whole aspect of responsibility. I suggested that people around the university look at the literature of the 1970s -- newspapers, magazines, and other publications. During that period, the word "responsible" was only used in the context of someone being "responsible" for someone else. This will not work today. We must be responsible for ourselves and we must give students the ability and the know-how to be responsible. Only then will lifelong learning will be successful.
For 15 years or more students walk into classrooms, sit down, and wait until the person at the front tells them what to do. Their problem-solving skills are based on solving a well-defined problem in 15 minutes. Life is not like that. Co-op EDUCATION gives them the skills to go out there and initiate solutions to problems.
Employer say that students cannot solve problems. Most of them can solve calculus problems very well and conduct experiments. They are trained to do those sorts of things but many have no tools to recognize a problem and initiate a solution. When they are sitting there doing photocopying, they do not always look around them at what needs to be done.
I ask myself: What has changed and why? Formerly, when we were out in that field alone, we had to solve our own problems. Now even our social time is organized. We have skating clubs, and various other clubs. Children cannot even organize their own games.
With a grant from the B.C. government, we have been given the opportunity to work on the development of a course in problem solving, interpersonal skills, and self-regulated learning. We have an excellent person working with us on this. How successful we will be in being able to provide a course that will start to address some of these issues, we do not know, but I think it is a step in the right direction. It also cannot happen only in the classroom. It must be connected with what happens in the work environment. Situational learning is very different from classroom learning and there are certain things, as have been known for many years, with our apprenticeship programs, our medical programs, our professional ones, that cannot be learned without doing them. I think that applies to a lot more programs than those we have traditionally thought of. I do not think many of us would like to be operated on by a person who has only heard or read the theory. We must encourage people to be self-starters. Those will be the lifelong learners.
Another area of learning which is lacking is good communication skills. It is not that students cannot write or that they do not know which words to use, it is that they do not know what is expected.
Concepts of clarity and conciseness have changed. Many jobs are, in some way, connected to the web. The language used to communicate on the web is very different from that used in other environments. This difference has to become part of their problem solving techniques.
Does our EDUCATION system promote team play or competition? It is changing but Canadians must be team players if we are to have a rich Canada in the future. We need cooperative EDUCATION all year around, not just when it is convenient for the academic institution. We are in a position to make a contribution, and I would like to offer our services to this committee.
We interact with many industries. We interact with many students. We are aware of what is happening in the working world, but we are not taking the time to document it. We probably could be doing a lot more with the information. In the recommendations outlined in our brief, we ask you to continue to support the concept of cooperative EDUCATION. The federal government has an excellent record in not only hiring students, but in providing guidance and training for them. Students also give in return. They create new opportunities. One student who worked for Canadian Airlines saved them in the neighbourhood of $1 million because he had a bright, new idea. It works both ways.
We would like the federal government to continue to include references to co-op EDUCATION whenever it is appropriate, and to validate co-operative EDUCATION as mainstream. My own university runs a special program called, "Stepping Out". Students must pay $90 to enter this program because it is not a mainstream program. I hope it soon will be classified as such.
I believe co-op EDUCATION should be available to everyone who wishes it. Funding should be coordinated so that we do not waste it but that we do direct it wisely to provide working opportunities, utilize co-op partnerships for gathering employment trends and information, and support employers as partners. Employers are often criticized for not doing their part. We have had some excellent employers who have spent a great deal of supervisory time training students and they receive no recognition for it.
We have the ability to provide a subsidy which will be provided through the B.C. government. The co-op institutions choose who will be the recipient of such a subsidy, and we are very fussy. The subsidies will be given to students who need them. They will not be given to those who are already earning a salary from a company.
We encourage coordination between federal and provincial governments and we would encourage direct funding for co-op to institutions. When it goes in the global pot, we lose track of it.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for an excellent paper and giving us food for thought.
Senator Perrault: You have a very successful program.
Senator Carney: I think you have clearly illustrated that many students do not know how to identify a problem and, therefore, they cannot find a solution. Little in their experience teaches them to actually identify the nature of the problem they are expected to address. That is very important.
In looking at at your recommendations, I wish to make the point that tax incentives are a "no-no" these days in that they are not part of the prevailing fiscal philosophy in any government because they open the door to too many other demands for tax incentives. However, we do recognize that employers should be encouraged to participate. I have encountered two obstacles to employer participation. One is that it takes management time and that is a solid cost.
Ms Godwin: There is a cost to the employer.
Senator Carney: The second obstacle is that a company may be training its competition. There is nothing to prevent their trainee from leaving and going to work for the competition.
Given the fact that these are obstacles, what have you found works to encourage employers? Maybe that is something we could encourage. Clearly you have some solutions, because employers are in favour of this program.
Ms Godwin: I have often been accused of being a mother who is always asking for help. The companies get a lot out of the program because the students do contribute.
We can utilize this program in a number of ways. For example, we could instigate a mentor system. Recently I was reading that some of our First Nations people have difficulties because, as students they often must move into new areas where there is no one to supervise them. I would point out that we have a group of people who are about to retire who have a wealth of knowledge and experience and, if we can use them to develop a mentor system, we could provide new opportunities for our students in areas where there is little competition.
Senator Carney: The mentor system is something this committee should consider because it will utilize the expertise we have.
Ms Godwin: If there are any dollars available perhaps they could be used to cover the expenses of those who formally join up as mentors.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Have you heard of the program in Sherbrooke?
Ms Godwin: Yes.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Is it along the same lines as your program?
Ms Godwin: Yes.
Senator Lavoie-Roux:I believe that has been in existence for quite a number of years.
Ms Godwin: Yes, that was one of the original programs.
The Chairman: Ms Godwin, we want to thank you very much for an excellent paper.
Senator Perrault: First rate.
The Chairman: Perhaps we will cooperate with you in a cooperative program.
Ms Godwin: I hope so.
The Chairman: Our next item on our agenda is set for six o'clock. Does anyone wish to ask any questions or make any comments?
Senator Andreychuk: Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs was recently in Vancouver as part of its study on the Asia Pacific region. During the course of those hearings, several witnesses touched on the issue of EDUCATION, and they dealt with it in a different way from the way our university academics and professors are dealing with it. They discussed job training and what students require to succeed in a global, competitive environment. I believe that the testimony of those witness is relevant to the study being undertaken by this committee and I would, therefore, ask if it would be appropriate to move a motion that the testimony of those witnesses be circulated as part of our study. Perhaps our clerk could get together with Mr. Pelletier to identify that testimony. It would give us a different perspective of the whole issue without having to call all those witnesses.
Senator Forest: Would it be acceptable to the Foreign Affairs Committee that that testimony be distributed?
Senator Andreychuk: The hearings of both committees were public.
Senator Carney: Since the Foreign Affairs committee was public, I do not think it is necessary to put a motion. I think this committee could freely access that information.
Senator Perrault: Perhaps we should consult the chairman of the other committee.
Senator Andreychuk: Yes.
Senator Carney: The witnesses were not asked to appear before this committee. The easiest way to do this would be to circulate the public documents from our Foreign Affairs committee. It could be done as a matter of public record.
Senator Andreychuk: I think it is unnecessary to circulate all of the testimony since many witnesses did not touch on the issue of Post-Secondary education or EDUCATION. We can be selective.
Senator Carney: Of course.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Mr. Chairman, I think we should proceed by preparing our draft report and, after it has been revised, consider the evidence given before another committee. I do not think we should integrate the whole thing into this committee.
Senator Andreychuk: I agree that we should not integrate all of that evidence. I think we should select the evidence that deals with EDUCATION and consider that. We can use the information that is on the public record for our own purposes.
Senator Carney: Perhaps the chairman could simply direct the clerk to have any relevant information from the other of committee hearings circulated to members of this committee? We can then decide whether to include any reference to it in our report.
The Chairman: I think we should ask the clerk of the other committee to make that public document available to each member of this committee. We can then use anything that is relevant.
Honourable Senators, thank you all for being so attentive. I look forward to seeing you early tomorrow morning.
The committee adjourned.