Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs,
Science and Technology
Subcommittee on Post-Secondary education
Issue 12 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 10, 1997
The Subcommittee on Post-Secondary education of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, met this day at 9:05 a.m. to continue its inquiry into the state of Post-Secondary education in Canada.
Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux (Deputy Chair) in the Chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: It is a pleasure to welcome representatives from three excellent universities. I know them well.
I ask Ms Chantal da Silva to introduce the people with her and then to proceed.
Ms Chantal da Silva, Vice-President, External Affairs, Students' Society of McGill University: With me this morning from McGill University is Prachi Srivastava, who is the EDUCATIONal representative to our students' council. Also attending this morning are two gentlemen from Bishop's. The representative from Concordia is not here yet.
We thank you for providing us with this opportunity to address the Senate's Subcommittee on Post-Secondary education. As the Students' Society representatives of McGill University, we intend today to articulate the thoughts and needs of our students with the hope that today's consultation will serve to resolve many of the challenges faced by the university community. In so doing, we also wish to recognize Senator Bonnell's special contribution in facilitating a pan-Canadian review of Post-Secondary education.
I am sure you have our submission in front of you, senators. If you prefer, there is also a quick reference to the summary of our recommendations on page 8.
The federal government, as we see it, has clearly identified important objectives towards which it is working. They include debt rposttion, wealth creation, and job creation, among others. In order to achieve these goals, this country requires a highly skilled, productive, and flexible workforce. Wealth creation can no longer depend upon natural resources or investment in traditional infrastructure.
In the future, we must rely on the skills and ingenuity of our workforce to add value to both traditional and new areas of economic activity. A post-secondary EDUCATION, therefore, is an investment which is of fundamental importance to the economic well-being of this nation in the long run.
A well-postated population is a prerequisite for both economic growth and societal development. EDUCATION gives Canadians the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and experiences which enable them to take responsibility for shaping their own future.
The Deputy Chair: May I stop you for a moment? You are not reading from the text that you gave us.
Ms da Silva: No. I am glossing over several points we wish to emphasize. EDUCATION encourages democracy by creating a literate and knowledgeable population, lowers crime rates, and decreases dependence on health and welfare programs. Most of all, EDUCATION enables Canadians to learn about each other and to interact and to live together peacefully. EDUCATION is an investment in our future.
To ensure that Canada is able to meet the need of postating itself for the next millennium, a number of challenges must be acknowledged. That is what we are attempting to do today. We have identified four primary areas of concern to students across Canada.
Ms Prachi Srivastava, Students' Society of McGill University: These include student indebtedness, tuition fees, student mobility, and copyright -- the amendment to Bill C-32. I will further elaborate on student indebtedness. I will be reading from page 2 of our submission. We will then elaborate on some of the recommendations we have made.
In Canada, student indebtedness has reached a critical peak. The increasing costs facing students, the relinquishing of provincial grant programs, part of the CSLP, the shift to a loans-based student aid system, and the rise of the CSLP's weekly loan limit to $165 per week in 1994 have all contributed to a dramatic increase in student borrowing. The average debt level of students upon graduation who take out loans is expected to triple from $8,700 in 1990 to $25,000 dollars in 1998. Particularly in Quebec, according to recent studies, the average debt upon graduation is even higher, ranging from $15,000 to $20,000. Indeed, this means that students who borrow will, as of 1998, graduate with an average debt of 75 per cent of their income two years after graduation. It should also be underlined that this is simply a median and that significant numbers of students will have debts that substantially exceed even this high ratio.
The effects of these debt loads on accessibility is yet to be determined. However, a recent comparison with the debt loads in the United States in 1993 demonstrated that the average net debt for Canadian university graduates was $13,019 compared to $11,000 for Americans. Unfortunately, as debt levels rise and provincial grant programs decline, the current Canadian system of student aid does nothing more than disadvantage students.
Since student loans continue to represent a major source of financial assistance to students, the SSMU recommends that the federal government, first, recognize that student aid is a key factor in accessibility; second, revise student loan programs by adding funding for bursary programs to cap debts for students in need of additional assistance; and, third, act upon its responsibility to help students repay their loans through tax incentives, loan forgiveness, and extended interest relief.
The second point talks about adding funding for bursary programs. We have noticed the trend of rising tuition; however, as of yet, we have not seen that enrolment has declined as such. However, we have come to a point where we think that threshold will be reached. If tuition fees continue to rise, students will no longer be able to access the EDUCATIONal system as they have in the past. For this, many students turn to student aid, but we have seen in the past few years that student aid is now becoming synonymous with student debt.
To curb this problem, it is important that it be recognized that bursaries are a much more important or invaluable form of funding for students because they take off more of the burden that they face in terms of paying off their debts upon graduation. As was underlined, it is 75 per cent of their income two years after graduation, and that is the big problem many students face.
With respect to the third recommendation, we have elaborated in terms of different tax incentives. We refer here to registered EDUCATIONal savings plans which would work similarly to the way RRSPs work now. Parents could save up for their child's Post-Secondary education in a program similar to RRSPs.
As for loan forgiveness, we have talked about an 80-20 scheme whereby, if a student was able to pay back 80 per cent of their loans on time and has a good track record and a good credit record, then the government could then take steps to say, "Okay, we will forgive the remaining 20 per cent portion of your debt."
These are some incentives that could be put in place so that students feel that the burden is not so overwhelming upon graduation. My colleague will now elaborate on our second point, which is tuition fees.
Ms da Silva: The recent debate over federal tuition has resulted from the federal government's cuts to provincial transfer payments. This occurrence has left provincial governments scrambling for additional revenue. In so doing, they have slashed funding to social programs of which EDUCATION is one of the hardest hit. In the provincial governments' quest for more funds, they have cut operating grants, sought tuition increases, and decreased students loans, jeopardizing every avenue to accessibility. Overall, the EDUCATION system has been financially depleted. As a direct result, students have been made to compensate for the shortfalls in Post-Secondary education funding. Consequently, students now, especially at McGill, face higher ancillary fees, poor library and lab resources, larger classroom sizes, less tenured staff, and a general decline in the quality of EDUCATION.
Therefore, since tuition fees are one of the financial considerations students ponder in deciding whether to pursue a Post-Secondary education career, the Students' Society recommends that, in promoting accessibility, the federal government must recognize the deleterious effect on the principle of universal accessibility resulting from funding cuts to EDUCATION, which inherently leads to tuition hikes and higher debt loads; revise the current transfer payment scheme so that it may stabilize government funding and tuition at a level which improves accessibility for students and enables institutions to deliver a higher quality of Post-Secondary education; and ensure that tuition fees do not increase beyond the rate of inflation until government completes a comprehensive and credible study on the effect of tuition hikes on accessibility.
I will move on to student mobility, a big issue that has hit Quebec this year, especially McGill, as 40 per cent of our students are out-of-province and international students. In an academic and financial sense, student mobility is of the utmost importance to Canada's system of Post-Secondary education. Unfortunately, where Post-Secondary education is concerned, there currently exists two threats to student mobility, namely, cuts to out-of-province student loans and differential tuition based on province of residence. Both these policies undermine the principles of equality and mobility as defined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Nonetheless, they have been implemented recently by the Quebec government. Quebec's out-of-province student loan policy prevents students from receiving financial assistance to study outside the province unless they attend a French institution. Similarly, Quebec's differential tuition policy bases tuition levels on provincial residency. Therefore, any out-of-province student studying in a Quebec university is required to pay higher tuition than a Quebec resident.
Since both these policies clearly discriminate based on residency, they hinder the freedom of movement of students across provincial boundaries in the pursuit of a Post-Secondary education. In light of this fact and with the existence of these barriers to student mobility, the Students' Society recommends that the federal government do two things. First, it should withhold or deny funding and loan transfers to any province which restricts interprovincial mobility by instituting differential tuition on a residency basis or denies out-of-province student loans. It should recognize that these policies may undermine, potentially, national standards by causing interprovincial disparities within the Canadian EDUCATIONal system.
I will stop here and take any questions you may have, Madam Deputy Chair.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: I think we should allow the two witnesses from Bishop's and Concordia to make their presentation. Afterward we will move on to questions.
[English]
Mr. Drew Leyburne, President Elect, Bishop's University Students' Representative Council: We will speak specifically to the issue of tuition increases for out-of-province students because we feel it affects us more than any other issue.
Ian Smith-Windsor and I are students at Bishops' University, where approximately one-half of the student population comes from parts of Canada other than Quebec.
Like thousands of other out-of-province students in that province, we help contribute over $9 million a year into the Quebec economy. We become active members in our communities and, most important, we establish roots in a province other than our own.
Unfortunately, Madam Marois' decision to implement the largest one-time tuition increase in Canadian undergraduate history sends a message to students that their time, effort and money are not important. In a time when many Canadians are apt to throw up their hands and turn their backs on Quebec, we, the youth of Canada, are essentially being turned away through economic intimidation.
What is most frustrating at this point is that a student from Senegal, for instance, or any other French-speaking country around the world, is given about as much political voice in the situation as a student from Ottawa. Not only that, they can attend school in Quebec for about one-half the cost.
Students choose Quebec because they feel it is where they will receive the best EDUCATION. Because of this decision by Madam Marois, it seems fewer students will be willing to make that choice. A dangerous precedent has been set in Quebec which may compromise academic accessibility and mobility throughout Canada.
Post-Secondary education should be a place to expand one's horizons. Without the security of a welcoming environment, it seems fewer students will be able to expand their horizons in Quebec.
We have provided to the committee a summary which covers most of our points. We are open to questions.
Mr. Carl Kouri, Vice-President External Affairs, Concordia Student Union: Madam Deputy Chair, I will deal with a couple of topics, one of which is tuition fee increases. Chantal talked about that in sufficient detail. Therefore, I will turn to another concern for students at Concordia, that is, the budgetary compressions which are coming forth in the next year.
We have suffered a $20 million budgetary cut combined over the past two years. For the coming year, 1997-98, we are looking at an additional cut of close to $17 million at Concordia University. This will mean drastic adjustments. Whole departments will be cut.
I have entitled my document, "Our Immediate Future," just as our Vice-Rector, Academics, entitled his document. However, our situation is a lot more drastic, let us say. He is putting forward scenarios in which complete programs are being cut from our university, as well as many courses. The size of a basic introductory course will go from 40 students to 80 or 90 students. That will greatly rposte the quality of EDUCATION.
We at Concordia fear for the quality of our EDUCATION. This is not a regular cut which will cause us to tighten our belts. The quality of our EDUCATION at Concordia will change. It will be downgraded, something about which we are greatly concerned.
Bernard Landry is the Minister of Finance of Quebec. In his budget, he explained the social transfer from the federal government. He brought forward three points.
First, he stated that one-half the federal government's cuts have targeted the transfers to the provinces since 1993. In 1997-98, cuts to social transfers will translate into an added slash of $1.4 billion for social services in Quebec. Also, 60 per cent of the rposttion in expenses which Quebec must make in 1997-98 will be to offset the cut to the social transfer payment.
We understand there is a deficit and that we need to get rid of it. We need to start eliminating it. We question very seriously whether we need to eliminate it within three or four years. That is a very short time period in which to get that done. I do not think the world monetary banks will frown upon Canada if they are on their way. They are cutting, but they are drastically cutting right now. This is not regular cutting. What we are looking at is basically the end of quality EDUCATION. I do not think that companies will want that. Companies which are willing to invest will want to invest in a country where the labour force is skilled. Our quality will be close to that of the United States. I, for one, would rather we go in the opposite direction.
The Deputy Chair: I wish to thank the representatives of the three universities for their presentations.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: You talked about mobility as it relates to the financial aspect, but it bothers me that you did not talk about mobility as it relates to the recognition of credits and of courses taken in other provinces, because your three universities have a fair number of foreign students and students from other provinces.
I have a daughter in British Columbia who had to take two years of university all over again because she had done her university studies in Quebec. This meant that she lost two years, aside from the bother of having to do courses over again, the expense, the loans. I wonder which is the biggest obstacle. Is it the fact that the financial structures differ, that is the rates, the fees?
I once wrote to Premier Davis to point out the fact that fees to attend university in Quebec were $500, whereas they were $2,000 at the University of Ottawa. At that time I had one daughter in Ontario and one in Quebec. Tuition fees are much lower in Quebec than in the rest of Canada. I'm sure you will understand that I'm not the person who will defend Mr. Landry, but I might defend having lower tuition fees for students from Quebec, since fees there are lower than in the rest of Canada. This would be tantamount to subsidizing a student. I would like to see a fee structure which would mean that we would pay the amount that we would normally pay in our province.
The same thing applies to international exchanges between Spain and Canada. The Spanish student registers at a university in Madrid, to study, let's say, business administration, and there is an exchange. Registration is based on the student's place of residence. As a federal government we cannot impose a fee structure to each university and each faculty, but it is important to have a fair system. That is my perspective on your proposal. I feel mobility is very important for young Canadians to allow them to move around and study in various provinces and get to know another environment while they are learning a profession. Are you concerned by the matter of credit equivalencies? Would some type of reciprocity system be preferable, or some mechanism to pay registration fees to the university, since McGill University is a large university and accepts a large number of people from elsewhere? I would like to hear your reply and what you would propose to our government.
[English]
Ms da Silva: If I understand you correctly, your question is about credit requirements between the different provinces and whether that is more important to us than the province's restricting of inter-provincial mobility.
For us, it is not a question of which is more important. They are both barriers to Post-Secondary education. I agree with you in that sense.
The biggest issue for us at McGill is not whether tuition is too high. In fact, many of the faculty members who are members of our student council agree that, perhaps, tuition fees should increase to meet the national level. The problem is the message that the government is sending. Because of the policy that they have instituted, it is seen as very discriminatory.
One of the reasons students from Ontario and elsewhere in the country come to Quebec is because we have one of the lowest tuition fees in the country. Yes, it looks as though Quebec is harbouring Canada's EDUCATIONal refugees, or so Mr. Landry and Mr. Bouchard would like to say, but, at the same time, we must remember that, when Quebec students go to these other provinces, they pay for our students, too.
This is a question of intercultural exchange, interprovincial mobility and the right to travel and to study as free Canadians in this country, without barriers.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: If I were to suggest that you pay the fee imposed by your province, whichever province you are from, what do you say about that?
[Translation]
Mr. Kouri: We have to pay Quebec tuition fees to go to California, and that is an amazing deal. I believe it would amount to $30,000 a year. What happened was that I mentioned that I wanted to go. But when I wanted to go, California had barred Quebec students, because there were too many. It might be a better idea to have everyone pay the fees that apply in the province, state or country; it would be much simpler than having problems like that. There is always abuse. If everyone paid the tuition fees charged by the institution they want to attend, that would be fairer. If you want to study in California, you should pay for that luxury. We need something much more equitable. I will give you an example of something similar.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Did you want to elaborate?
[Translation]
Senator Losier-Cool: You've answered on the matter of fees, but on the issue of recognizing past studies, we talked in this committee about having a type of EDUCATION passport. I didn't hear you refer to that. Could you elaborate?
Mr. Kouri: I don't understand the meaning of the question.
Senator Losier-Cool: My colleague explained this. He referred to the case of the girl who had studied in Quebec, then went to British Columbia where she had to do several courses all over again; the question is about recognizing courses from one province to the other.
Mr. Kouri: I agree entirely that we should do this. Even within Quebec, this is not done on a widespread basis. Because of budget constraints, universities are being forced to create a university network. You might say that this is the only good result of these budget constraints, the fact that these networks are being set up.
Senator Losier-Cool: It would be good if universities acted before having things imposed upon them.
Mr. Kouri: We have to do this at home before we ask that this be done elsewhere. We have to understand ourselves before we can understand others. It will come, in time. All of the provinces have to adhere to the system. I do not know how things are done in all of the other provinces.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: The system works better between Canada and the United States than between British Columbia and Quebec. That is somewhat ridiculous.
You can have the credits you earned in a Montreal institution recognized in New York, but not in British Columbia. Something is wrong with that system.
Mr. Kouri: Communication is somewhat different between institutions, between governments. These exchanges are not always characterized by openness, I think.
[English]
Ms da Silva: It is also a question of the different programs. It is not just that a university on the whole would be recognized, but it is dependent upon the program.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Generally, they have put their houses in order and you can practice in various countries and the degrees are recognized everywhere. When you go into social science, it is the same for the doctors. It is the same for nurses, but humanities in general have more barriers. They should not exist because, at the federal level, we contribute to whichever province, and if a students has to do it twice, then we are paying twice.
Ms da Silva: These are issues brought up at the états généraux in Quebec this past summer. It was also an issue that we brought up at the conference of the Council of Ministers of EDUCATION of Canada of which we were a part this summer in Edmonton. These are things that are to be worked out; but, as Mr. Kouri said, it is a problem within our own province. We have to clean house first before we start instituting it on a nation-wide basis.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: What about the level of the quality to make these adjustments if everyone pretends that they are better than the others?
Ms da Silva: It is also a question of funding, too. Different schools cry out that their quality is dropping while other schools say that their programs are increasing in quality. It is all a question of how much money they are getting from a provincial government. That is another problem.
Mr. Kouri: We also have to take things in perspective. At Concordia, we say that the communications and the cinema and fine arts departments are great and that the quality of EDUCATION in those particular programs will not drop. They will continue to receive adequate funding.
The Deputy Chair: I should like to ask you to give brief replies because there are many other people who want to intervene.
[Translation]
Senator Cogger: In order to further mobility and recognition of credits at both the national and international levels, how would you react to the idea, for instance, of establishing national standards? Mr. Kouri said, for instance, that Concordia had a first rate communications faculty. Since it has not been compared to others, we do not know that. He is probably right, its reputation is established.
However, we do not have quasi-objective criteria to verify that statement. How would you react to the idea of establishing national criteria that would facilitate mobility? We would then know that a credit obtained at Concordia has the same value as a credit obtained at Simon Fraser.
Mr. Kouri: When would these national standards come into play?
Senator Cogger: I am asking you. Do you think this concept has potential, does it have a future?
Ms da Silva: Yes, we think it has potential.
[English]
Ms da Silva: For years, this is something about which we have been crying out. We are a member of the Canadian Alliance of Students Associations, which has had an opportunity to present a brief to your committee. This is something we have discussed at all our open plenary sessions and all our conferences. It is an issue we brought up at CMEC, at the états généraux, and at the Ontario Council of Ministers. It is an idea and a possibility that keeps coming up over and over again.
We are here to ask you people around this table to make that happen, to empower us. There is only so much that we can say and ask for. Provincial governments are not willing to budge on this one.
I do not know how it will be implemented, but I very much agree with Senator Cogger that this is something that needs to be implemented because this is why the system is so disjointed.
How can we have a national system of EDUCATION when, as Senator Hervieux-Payette said, some credits are worthy in one place, while they are not equivalent in another. This is terrible. It is absolutely ridiculous. We should be able to say that a student can travel anywhere in this country and turn their credits in and have theme treated as equivalent at any institution.
Ms Srivastava: We are asking for credit equivalency on one condition, though. That is to say, that it does not take away from some of the autonomy that institutions have. We do not want it to be the case that each institution is churning out students. We want each institution to have a little bit of autonomy and independence.
We need to recognize the fact that there is a definite need for credit equivalency and national standards. The way that the system is at the moment, there are little disconnected pockets, a university here, a college there, colleges in B.C., universities here and there, and CEGEPs in Quebec. Everything is going haywire.
Senator Cogger: To a certain extent it is already in existence and it is reasonably easy when you come to subjects like science and math, et cetera. However, when you come to the more subjective matters, such as literature, art, cinema and communications -- the soft subjects -- would you still argue in favour of the establishment of national standards?
Ms da Silva: That would be the situation, definitely, with some manner of flexibility for different institutions, depending on their speciality.
Mr. Kouri: You would need a great deal of leeway when it comes to things like that, depending on the province. Communication tends to go north-south. People in Vancouver have much more in common with people in Washington, just as people in the prairies have much more in common with people in Montana. So to take any free expression of thought, whether it is in the social sciences or art, and categorize it that way would be very dangerous. We do not think the same way, and that is one of the things that makes Canada special. To that extent I would have to draw a line and say national standards would be dangerous.
Senator Perrault: The Students' Society of McGill University says that the government should act upon its responsibility to help students repay their loans through tax incentives, loan forgiveness and extended interest relief. What about working off part of the loan through a public service program? In other words, it would provide opportunities for young people to use some of the skills they have acquired at university and at the same time help pay off that loan.
Ms da Silva: It is an excellent idea. We submitted a federal work-study paper in May of last year as part of the Canadian student association on that very subject.
Senator Perrault: I would like to get a copy of it.
Ms da Silva: We have it with us.
Senator Perrault: I mentioned this in the maritimes and there was very positive reaction from the students there.
Mr. Kouri: Above and beyond that, the point is students would be acquiring experience in their field.
Senator Perrault: Hopefully in a discipline in which they have received training.
Mr. Kouri: Exactly.
Senator Perrault: As one member of the committee, I would welcome your suggestions on how a plan of this sort could be put into force. I should like some creative ideas from you. I think the idea has merit and I think we should proceed with it.
Mr. Kouri: There is already a plan in the works now in Quebec. It does not have to do with loans and bursaries but with a work-study program. You receive credit for working with students in whatever field you are studying.
Senator Perrault: That is what I have in mind.
Mr. Kouri: There are problems in secondary EDUCATION and in primary EDUCATION. Students need more help and the teachers only have so many hands.
Senator Perrault: The faculties are rposted and placed under stress.
Mr. Kouri: They need help. This is one of the best ways of doing it. If this can go through, I hope the other provinces can use the example.
Senator Perrault: Your creative thinking on this subject would be welcomed by members of the committee. Perhaps we should proceed in that direction.
Senator Andreychuk: You are all saying that you need work experience. Do you need work experience because you need the money to get yourselves through university or are you saying you are not getting sufficient training in your own field? I see those as two different things.
One of the reasons that I was encouraged 30 years ago to go and get a job in my non-specific field is that I would become more of a generalist and understand what the world is like and not put myself into a pigeonhole. I happen to have taken law. I think some of the most valuable experiences I received were working in a finance company, in a local theatre, and as a secretary. I touched people in their different fields.
When you study law in France, they push you out at some time to go and spend a year in a discipline other than law.
You seem to say you want to start at some career point and stay in there and get the additional experience. I do not understand. Is that a money need or is it that a critical mass of EDUCATION in your field is not being provided for you within your courses and within the context of your subjects?
Ms da Silva: These days, I think it is probably more a question of money, unfortunately. I will congratulate the universities. I think they do a fine job of training students, whether it is in political science, EDUCATION or law. Some of these programs provide work-study opportunities, co-op programs, apprenticeships or things of that nature.
It is increasingly as a result of the need for money. The costs of EDUCATION are rising quickly. You do not see students seeking a summer job just for the heck of it, to gain some experience and learn a little bit about, say, the political field. They do so out of a need for money to buy books, pay tuition and rent on an apartment, not to mention buying food. That is the way it is.
Senator Andreychuk: What are you asking for, then?
Ms da Silva: Perhaps more work-study programs or more co-op programs.
Senator Andreychuk: With a view to getting more income to pay for your EDUCATION?
Ms da Silva: Yes.
Senator Andreychuk: I want to go back quickly to the copyright question. You have put more down on paper than anyone else has on the implications of this copyright bill. Is this a significant issue? Will it be touching only certain disciplines or will it be important across the board?
Ms Srivastava: Yesterday, just moments before we were leaving the office to come here, a student asked us if we would be talking about the copyright issue and Bill C-32. The reason that it is so important is that it touches people on a very practical basis. We have heard rumours that we may no longer have photocopy machines in our libraries. Students wonder how they will get the class notes they missed or the research material they need. Sometimes libraries are not open. I know in my faculty the library is not open on Sundays. It may be open on Saturdays for five hours. If we do not have any copying machines, if there is only one book on reserve, and there are 150 people in the class, that will just not work, on a practical basis. The person who brought this up had read the report in its entirety and, out of everything in it, the issue of Bill C-32 was the thing that was highlighted.
Ms da Silva: It is very threatening. To answer your question, it affects every faculty and every program in the university.
Senator Andreychuk: What about second-hand books? Certainly, I got my EDUCATION from second-hand books. We have not heard too much about that. Is it because the copyright issue has been evolving so quickly?
Ms da Silva: It is becoming increasingly difficult for students to buy second-hand books because every year or every second year there is a new edition, and the teacher has to use the new one, of course. Sometimes the teacher has decided to write a new book, and his old book is no good any more. It is not part of the class. Sometimes it can be difficult or impossible to get a second-hand textbook in an 800-person class.
What is of more importance to us now is the issue of used textbooks. These are the used textbooks that students return to the library, or for which they can be reimbursed if they cannot sell them.
The Deputy Chair: In the submission from the Students' Society of McGill University, you say that the students in Quebec are at greater threat than those in other provinces. I am a little bit surprised by this for two reasons. The first is that the fees are lower in Quebec. The second is that Quebec is the only province, I think, where there are loans as well as bursaries. Could you justify this statement?
Ms da Silva: Yes. The figure of $15,000 to $20,000 was an average. That is a fact, unfortunately. It is not as high perhaps in the maritime provinces, but the simple fact is that the cost of living in Quebec is higher and the government has started cutting back in loans and bursaries.
The Deputy Chair: The cost of living in Quebec is higher than where?
Ms da Silva: I would say that it is higher than in Ontario, definitely.
The Deputy Chair: We will not enter into that discussion.
Ms da Silva: I am sorry. The cost of living in Quebec is not higher than in Ontario, but the debt level is higher. That is what I wanted to say. I do not have the statistics with me at this time. I wanted to fill three pages as to why the debt level was higher than it was, but I can give you a backgrounder on that for sure, if you like.
The Deputy Chair: You say that the net debt for Canadian universities is $13,000 compared for $11,000 for Americans.
Ms da Silva: In Canadian dollars.
The Deputy Chair: Are both figures in Canadian dollars?
Ms da Silva: Yes.
The Deputy Chair: The concept of national, standardized programs is not all that easy because when we get into areas such as art and design, how will you set standards that will be similar in New Brunswick, Halifax, Toronto and Montreal? I think it would create many problems. We cannot forget that there is competition between universities within a province and within the rest of Canada.
Ms da Silva: Another issue we thought about was instituting performance indicators for programs such as that, national performance indicators, perhaps, not a standardized blanket policy. We need performance indicators that these individual programs would have to meet.
Ms Srivastava: This would lead to credit equivalency. That is the major concern. It is not so much that each course has to be exactly the same and that we have to touch on exactly the same topics in the same way because that is not possible. What we are looking for is some form of credit equivalency so that the scenario of a Quebec student in British Columbia having to redo two years of school does not come up.
Senator Andreychuk: I would still argue that that is not possible in some cases. You should not or cannot get credit equivalency for every class you take elsewhere. I think that maintains the notion of integrity. I do not want homogenized EDUCATION. EDUCATION should be mind expanding, not narrowing. Would we not be better off if we had some ability to assess and get at credit equivalency and transferability in an easy way? Many students have said that they think they have something that is transferable. You read the books, see that it is transferable, and waste a lot of time finding out you cannot use the two years. What we need are systems and procedures to assess what you are doing so that you know the transfer capabilities before you get into those courses. You might then make better career choices. Would that be one way of attacking the dilemma?
Ms da Silva: Definitely.
The Deputy Chair: It is true that EDUCATION in general has been "pressed down," if I can use that phrase. Responsibilities fall on both the shoulders of the federal government and the provincial governments. Given the cuts to transfer payments, it is true that EDUCATION has had a rough time. Then, again, this is a matter about which the federal government and the provinces should get together and ask whether it is a priority to get Post-Secondary education on its feet. They should be working in the same direction. Some efforts are made in certain sectors, but then they are sabotaged by other things. It is a difficult question, but we have been told the same thing throughout the country. We have travelled from Vancouver to Halifax.
I know it will be difficult for Bishop's University. As a student organization, perhaps you should go directly to the Minister of EDUCATION in Quebec. Do not be afraid. She is not such a scary woman. That is the institution for which things will be the hardest.
Out-of-province students should request that the English universities in Quebec teach you French before you graduate. However, that is not part of our debate.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Since all of you have great IQs and you will all be professionals, would the requirement to obtain even the first level of a degree to speak Canada's two official languages be perceived negatively by the students? You must speak three languages in the Erasmus program in Europe for the European Community. Then you are allowed to practise in all the EEC countries. I feel that requiring two languages would not be too much to ask since in Europe they are required to speak three. How would that be seen throughout the country? In other words, in order to get your degree, you must speak both languages.
Mr. Kouri: I agree with you 100 per cent. If we are to be a bilingual country, everyone, especially people following Post-Secondary education, should be required to do that. Even at the secondary level, people should come at least with a base knowledge of either language, depending upon the province. However, I will tell you that in Quebec you will have a lot of reticence to learn English, just as in the rest of Canada there will be a reluctance to learn French. I have lived in British Columbia and I have seen it. It is the same thing, but in the reverse. I have seen it firsthand.
The Deputy Chair: In Quebec, parents want their kids to know the two languages.
Mr. Kouri: The parents, yes, but at the university level, they are already 18 years old.
The Deputy Chair: Their children are probably going to English-speaking camps anyway. However, that is beside the point as well.
Mr. Ian Smith-Windsor, Vice-President Academic Elect, Bishop's University Students' Representative Council: Ideally, this should happen in high school right now. We are a bilingual country. We would like to see our high school students finish high school having a working knowledge of French. Unfortunately, that is not necessarily the case.
What I am getting at is when you start putting up barriers to different provinces like Quebec where students have an opportunity to learn French, you make that so much more difficult for all Canadians.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: I want to thank you; you all speak French. We gave the gentleman over there a chance to practise a little. The problems you have raised are those we heard about when we travelled to various places in Canada. They are related to the funding which affects students, professors, and the administrative operations of universities. Once again, I thank you and want to assure you that we have taken good note of your comments.
Our next witnesses are from the Association canadienne d'éducation de langue française, the Canadian Association for French Language EDUCATION. Mr. Bordeleau, it is a pleasure to welcome you, as well as your colleague, Mr. Rioux. I want to thank you for having come here. When we went to other places in Canada, I was quite concerned by the fact that there was a paucity of French in the rest of Canada. If one compares this to Quebec, one cannot but note a difficult situation. Which does not mean that I do not have sympathy for English institutions in Quebec, as I don't feel that two wrongs will make a right situation. Everyone must be treated in fairly.
Mr. Louis-Gabriel Bordeleau, President, Association canadienne de l'éducation de langue française: Madam Deputy Chair, I know that the document we tabled with the committee has been distributed. I'm not very familiar with the way the committee operates, as this is my first appearance before a committee.
I expect that you will allow me to read the document, even if I do so quickly, or do you prefer to ask me questions about its content?
The Deputy Chair: I wouldn't venture to say that everyone has read it in depth from A to Z. Some senators may have read it three days ago. I think that without necessarily reading your text word for word, from beginning to end, you might summarize it and highlight the points that seem most important to you.
Mr. Bordeleau: Allow me to thank you for this opportunity to present our views on the issue of Post-Secondary education in Canada.
You understand that we have given the matter some thought and we wish to share our views on Post-Secondary education for francophones everywhere in Canada.
We are interested in that perspective. Our brief is divided into two parts. The shorter part 1 introduces the broad objectives of the Canadian Association for French Language EDUCATION, which, incidentally, is celebrating the 50th anniversary of its foundation this year, and will be celebrating it in high style in the city of Quebec, in the month of August when it will be holding a symposium on the future of French-language EDUCATION in Canada.
This document contains information which will allow you to acquaint yourselves with this project. I want to insist on the fact that not only does the ACELF promote the French language, but the association, like other stakeholders, wants to emphasize highlight the fact that language is the privileged means of expression of a culture, of a way of life, of a particular way of thinking and acting.
The promotion and enhancement of the linguistic and cultural well-being of francophones throughout Canada is our central and fundamental concern. That being said, we have examined the mandate of your committee and feel that some of the issues you are studying are more relevant for our purposes and more closely connected with French-language EDUCATION.
The first element would be the importance of Post-Secondary education for francophones, socially, culturally, and economically.
I feel comfortable discussing this issue as I am myself a university professor and have been for over 25 years. During all of that time, I have taught in minority francophone communities. I believe my experience allows me to share with you a reality-based perspective.
There is no doubt that college and university training is a first-rate tool to allow graduates to participate in an active and creative way in Canadian society; not only will they be able to participate in an active and creative way, but their social insertion will be easier and more dynamic, and for this reason it is important that those institutions of higher learning be institutions where the francophone cultural identity continues to flourish, as students' personal identities continue to develop.
We have come to the conclusion that it is difficult to think that a francophone might find himself in an institution where his language and culture are not considered important; in such an environment he or she cannot feel valued as an individual, quite the opposite.
As a number of persons have argued and continue to argue, it is in the EDUCATIONal institutions where French language and French-language culture are of central importance that a strong, competent French-language cultural identity is gradually being forged.
By making French-language and culture essential elements of post-secondary EDUCATION, these institutions contribute not only to the development of the linguistic and cultural identity of graduates, but also to the development of the French-speaking community in all parts of Canada.
Lastly, Post-Secondary education is still and will continue to be a special means of ensuring greater economic well-being among francophones. Quite recent data once again indicate better access to employment for post-secondary graduates than for persons without that level of EDUCATION.
In short, we fully endorse the importance of French-language post-secondary EDUCATION in order to facilitate social involvement, the development of cultural identity, and greater economic well-being among francophones.
Allow us now to highlight some issues that in our opinion particularly affect francophones, the first of these being the availability of institutions and programs for them. You referred, Madam Deputy Chair, to some of the conclusions you came to in your travels throughout the country. One can only echo your perceptions when one notes how dispersed French programs and services are as one travels throughout Canada.
Outside Quebec, institutions and programs are still being created in order to better serve francophones in their regions. This means that these services still do not exist in many places. When they do exist, the institutions often offer only the first level of university training.
Recently, three French-language community colleges were created in Ontario. It is extremely interesting to note the significant increase in registration within those three institutions when barely a year has elapsed since they were created. Not only are there new institutions being set up because they were not sufficient previously, but so-called bilingual institutions must also continue to increase the number of full French-language programs available. We can discuss this in greater detail during the question period, if you wish.
What all of this means is that a full range of French-language college and university programs is not yet available.
What of the participation rate of francophones in Post-Secondary education? Although we have managed to increase the participation rates in minority French Canadian communities so that they are now comparable to those of the general population, the participation of francophones in secondary studies continues to be lower than that of the general population. These gaps are more pronounced where university EDUCATION is concerned.
A number of factors explain these lower participation rates. Allow us to emphasize one factor in particular: the availability of French-language programs, or the availability in French of only a small part of university programs.
I refer to a study by Churchill and his colleagues which continues to be valid even though it was completed in 1985. Another study states that increased participation in Post-Secondary education is the result of greater availability of French-language programs. This report is available for anyone who would like to consult it.
We continue to argue that, in order to achieve participation rates by francophones comparable to those of the general population, we must take necessary steps to offer programs in francophones students' mother tongue. This seems obvious to us but it is important to remind everyone of that fact.
As to the conditions under which programs are offered, we recognize that French-speaking student populations are often small and scattered over vast areas, nor is it a recent phenomenon for them to be obliged to leave their home regions in order to pursue Post-Secondary education. In order to alleviate this diaspora certain steps can be considered; some have already been implemented.
I was interested to hear the discussion earlier about the mutual recognition by institutions of programs and credits. The issue is even more relevant and acute when it involves francophones. Whether they are graduate students or students in a small program at the University of Regina, the Collège de Saint-Boniface, Saint John University or the college in Pointe-à-l'Église, it is important that those students be allowed to complete elsewhere what they have begun in their home regions. This will only be made possible if serious consideration is given to standardizing programs to a certain extent and establishing mutual recognition by institutions of programs and credits.
Going from one institution to another is still too difficult and we feel that facilitating that movement will make it that much easier for individuals to pursue Post-Secondary education.
Integration of new technologies, the broadcasting of programs, funding for new technology and training in that field, distance EDUCATION, the Internet, et cetera have been in existence for some time now, and I want to say a few words about this topic. As a university professor, I have been experimenting with this teaching method for three years. There are some important elements there that need to be pursued.
In my humble opinion, these technologies are promising, but they also have their pitfalls. The challenge for us is to see how we can take these into account, or eliminate them.
I will mention a few of them. We have to provide support for students. It is all well and good to provide a university course in North Bay or in Northern Saskatchewan, but we have to make sure that the students who follow these courses are given support. Teaching materials must be made available, and access to specialized libraries is also important. Of course, the Internet will facilitate this, but it does not constitute the whole solution. In the final analysis, when we use those programs or these new technological means to provide them, we must ensure in advance, as we were saying earlier, that programs taken in one institution are recognized in others.
The question needs to be asked: Would it not be worthwhile to assess the quality of programs that are offered through distance EDUCATION? What is the students' satisfaction level, and what is the retention rate? That seems important.
The third element is faculty training and development. The points we discussed refer in particular to faculty in institutions outside Quebec teaching in programs in minority communities.
Post-Secondary education in minority communities is very often provided by faculty who come from somewhere else and very often their stay in a region is temporary, but whatever the length of their stay, this fact requires that they grasp the special situation of the minority communities in question.
Whether they are teaching in colleges or universities, it is important that these professors understand the special issues in these francophone communities where they are providing their teaching services.
As for the creation and distribution of teaching materials, two problems arise. We are still creating programs and to support those, of course, French language teaching materials have to be prepared. There is still a great deal of work to be done in this regard. We often resort to translations, short of providing teaching materials in English, or materials that are only partly available in French. I am thinking in particular of fields such as sciences and new technologies.
How can we provide assistance to the organizations that produce such materials, since they have to produce material for more limited markets? We think that this question needs to be examined. We have to provide technical and financial support to the publishing houses which must produce materials for these more limited markets.
As for research and development, particularly in universities, I would like to emphasize one fact, Madam Deputy Chair. There is a myth one often hears according to which French-speaking minorities in Canada have been studied ad nauseam. I would like to disabuse you of this notion. To the contrary, if there is a field or research topic which continues to be ignored and passed over, it is the French-speaking community in all of its aspects. There must be more research and analysis, more in-depth research, with a view to examining various aspects of French-speaking communities. Whether bearing on the sociological, economic, demographic, EDUCATIONal or any other aspect, this research must allow us to better understand the specific characteristics of Canada's French-speaking community. In order to help initiate and support this research, we feel that taking an inventory of existing studies and needed new ones is important; also, the results of this research must be distributed.
Allow me to use our journal, Éducation et francophonie, as an example. We will be happy to send you copies. It is the only Canadian journal that explores the special situation of French-language EDUCATION in Canada. Its survival is now threatened, because the minor financial support it used to receive has been eliminated this year. This magazine, or at least the paper version, is going to disappear in short order; the Internet version is still being published, but for how long? This shows to what extent our situation is precarious, when you realize that this is the only publication of its kind.
We would like to conclude by reiterating that Post-Secondary education for francophones in Canada, particularly those living outside Quebec, has not yet reached a level of development comparable to that observed among anglophones. As a member of the francophone minority, I am in a position to say that services, which I am familiar with in my community as a francophone, really cannot compare with the services offered to the anglophone minority in the province of Quebec.
In fact, French-language Post-Secondary education is still catching up as best it can, often in piecemeal fashion, it must be recognized, and nearly all institutions are being hit by major budget cuts. These cuts can only greatly slow this process or indeed bring it to a complete halt.
It is unfortunate that in many cases cuts are being made across the board, without taking into account the catching up that remains to be done. It is as though the grim reaper were cutting down everything with his scythe, cutting close to the ground, including new growth that has yet to develop.
We cannot claim to have grasped all the complexities of federal and provincial jurisdiction over Post-Secondary education, but whatever those complexities, it is important that there be adequate support to develop and maintain French-language post-secondary programs.
So that all the challenges facing French-language Post-Secondary education in Canada can be understood -- and we have only given you an overview of some of the obstacles we face -- the ACELF makes the following recommendation: that an exhaustive study of French-language Post-Secondary education be carried out as soon as possible.
I feel all the more justified in making this recommendation, Madam Deputy Chair, for I noted in reading the Smith report in 1991 that approximately eight lines were devoted to Post-Secondary education in French in Canada.
In our opinion this study would examine aspects such as the following, at the very least: What is the extent of francophones' need for post-secondary EDUCATION? We need a global vision of that issue. What is the extent of the services currently available to francophones? What are the gaps between these needs and the services? We know that the gaps are there, but where are they exactly and what is their extent.
And finally, we need recommendations for short and long-term measures to rposte those gaps.
Madam Deputy Chair, we consider that this study would go a long way toward making Post-Secondary education an important means for Canada's francophones to make an even more determined and dynamic entry into, as well as a unique contribution, to the next millennium. We thank you for your kind attention and we will attempt to reply to your questions, and also take good note of your comments.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bordeleau. I must say that for the first time you have given us the opportunity of examining an issue that concerns me greatly. We have had piecemeal bits of information here and there, but we had yet to have an overall vision. In this respect your testimony this morning is particularly valuable.
Senator Losier-Cool: Thank you, Madam Deputy Chair, for giving me the opportunity of asking my questions now, since I must leave to go to another committee. If I don't have time to hear the answer, my colleagues will.
This committee has almost concluded its hearings and I deplored that fact that we had only heard small bits of information here and there, as Madam Deputy Chair has just said.
I would like to hear your comments on the debate we had begun earlier with the students on the bilingualism of our university graduates throughout Canada. When the committee went out west, we heard witnesses tell us that because of our links with the Pacific Rim, university students should be learning Mandarin or Japanese. In Eastern Canada, because of our relations with Mexico, it was suggested that we should be learning Spanish. I asked myself the following question: Should we not tell them to first of all learn Canada's two official languages? Economic benefits were the reason given to justify learning those languages.
At the ACELF convention last year, one of the workshops highlighted the importance of francophone communities in Canada from the economic perspective. We might get further if we explained the economic advantages of being bilingual to university students. Perhaps your comprehensive study will bring that fact to the fore.
Mr. Bordeleau: I feel I am in a position to be able to talk about competency in both languages.
The Deputy Chair: You certainly have it!
Mr. Bordeleau: Francophone students who come from institutions I know very well are 98.88 per cent bilingual when they begin university studies. To use the University of Ottawa as an example, when language testing of students being admitted to pre-graduate studies is carried out, we see that there are barely 2 per cent of francophone Ontario students who must take courses to upgrade their English; all the others are bilingual. So, bilingualism does exist, in my humble opinion, for francophone students going into college or university.
The Deputy Chair: I believe my colleague was concerned about the others. I think we all understand each other.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Do you have any statistics concerning the number of French-speaking students outside Quebec? The total number of all of those who are enrolled in university, whether in Sudbury, Ottawa or elsewhere.
Mr. Bordeleau: Who are presently enrolled in French-language post-secondary studies?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: An approximate number; are we talking about 5,000, 10,000 or 50,000; how many students are there?
Mr. Bordeleau: I must confess my ignorance.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: We should have a look at that. I say that, Madam Deputy Chair, because I believe we have more than 30,000 spaces in English-language universities in Quebec, but I don't believe we have the same number of spaces for francophones outside Quebec. I think our province has to set a good example and I believe this is important. If we were to do such a study, these points of information would be uncovered.
Mr. Bordeleau: I think that for the first element, the extent of the need should certainly lead to the creation of the necessary services.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Correlations...
Mr. Bordeleau: Mr. Rioux and myself were just taking two institutions into account: Moncton has approximately 5,000, and Ottawa 10,000; but we only have two. At Laurentian University, I would say there are about 2,500. As far as the others are concerned, there has been a steep decline, but strictly at the university level, there may be almost 20,000. If you include the college level, the figure might change. But I don't have any figures on this, I'm sorry.
[English]
Senator Andreychuk: Thank you for your paper, especially the suggestion of a study. I wish to put forward two issues which may be sensitive to some people.
Your study talks about francophones. Are you suggesting that the study only touch francophones, or might it also touch other Canadians who wish to become bilingual?
I am conversant with Regina, and I know the difference between becoming bilingual in a University of Regina setting as opposed to what I went through where I could take French classes but the milieu was all English. I know how the students are going through the University of Regina and how much better off they are because of all the cultural activity and the francophone community which supports them. Many of the Southern Saskatchewan francophone needs are met through a university base. Those things are valuable and should be incorporated in the study.
I noticed you used the word "francophone," and I wondered whether you wanted a study directed specifically to the francophone community or to broaden the stage to include anyone who wishes to avail themselves of the francophone milieu?
Mr. Bordeleau: This is a critical question.
I, for one, have lived all of my professional life in a bilingual institution here in Ottawa and at Laurentian some years back.
A bilingual institution, or an institution which admits an important component of English-speaking students, must be linguistically and culturally strong in order for it to be a real milieu for the non-francophone who comes into that milieu.
Perhaps my rector would not agree if he were sitting next to me, but I am looking, for example, at the evolution of the linguistic component of the University of Ottawa. In the past 10 years, the equilibrium between the two linguistic groups has gradually been modified to a point where, in some instances, you are wondering if, aside from the program being given in French, if there is still a vibrant, cultural community expressing itself.
Perhaps I am waffling here a bit, but one would need to ensure that the cultural and linguistic strength of the program is such that it can provide a rich milieu for the anglophone student. If not, why go there?
I do not know if I am addressing the question.
Senator Andreychuk: Perhaps more specifically, in the study, would you want to address francophone needs, or francophone needs as well as the needs of any other students who wish to avail themselves of a French post-secondary EDUCATION?
Mr. Bordeleau: Post-Secondary education ought to be sufficiently inviting for non-francophones who wish to pursue it in that language to be there. Certainly, that would be an enrichment to the perspective.
Senator Andreychuk: Much has been said of language now that was lacking previously in Canadian discussions. If we are to survive as a nation in this globalized world, we must reach out and pick up other languages. We have been persuaded, as we were in Vancouver, that you just do not go and trade in Asia Pacific; you must understand the language and the culture, and you must start that as part of your EDUCATION base. That has now been imprinted on some people.
That is probably what has been wrong with our bilingualism policy. If we had not spent so much time retraining old civil servants -- and I am saying something that many other people have said -- and instead put those dollars and that process into our Post-Secondary education, I wonder if we would not be better off in so many ways as Canadians.
How can we recapture that idea and concept that we should be putting our bilingualism dollars into a post-secondary base, not only for all of the other spin-off benefits, but that we train people so that they become better motivated, productive Canadians?
I am hearing increasingly in another committee on which I sit that people feel that whatever career path they have chosen, all of a sudden they must work in the international milieu, and that often, French, if they are anglophone, would be helpful, but there is no way to learn it properly. The courses at universities are simply language courses or leading to a degree, but not leading to learning language in a cultural context which would make them better businessmen or better globalized professionals. Is that where we are also falling down in Post-Secondary education?
Mr. Bordeleau: It is a shame to a large extent that, in universities I know very well, a second language is now being provided by computerized programs. You are sitting in front of a computer all day. I know students who are sitting in front of the computer and learning French as a second language. That is nonsense. Where do you grasp the essence or the cultural flavour of that language?
It is really downgrading the language to a mere instrument. You are saying so well how language is the mirror of people and how they live and so on.
I have seen institutions drop their second language requirement. That is a shame. It was dropped because it was creating excessive anxiety in students who were saying, "Will we succeed?" My institution, for example, has dropped its second language requirement, something which it had in place for the past 15 years. How do we recapture what you are saying when we drop those requirements or when we lower those incentives?
Senator Andreychuk: Perhaps my postscript would be that we have dropped the essence of what EDUCATION was. Certainly, years ago, you could not get a Ph.D. if you did not know another language. You could not enter certain courses if you did not have Greek or other languages. The value of language training has been lost in an EDUCATIONal sense. I hope we can recapture that somewhere in our report.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux, Acting Secretary-General, Association canadienne de l'éducation de langue française: I would like to add that having myself been the vice-rector of one of Moncton University's institutions, the one in Shippegan in New Brunswick, I often had the opportunity of asking students why learning English might be useful to them, whether in school or university. I often used to tell them that, in life, it is not what you know that will get in your way, it is what you do not know!
As Canadians, it is important to realize that this is one of our strengths, and that the fact that we can learn both French and English is an opportunity. This is what characterizes us as Canadians and makes us different from Americans. I know a fellow who comes from an underprivileged community in our area in northeastern New Brunswick; today, he is 27 years old and he works for an international company in Portugal. He knows four languages. He is 27, and he had learned French and English; afterwards, he learned the other languages. Learning both languages is very important.
The study we were talking about earlier should also show what Senator Losier-Cool was mentioning about the economic value of having two languages, French and English, for starters.
[English]
Senator Forest: Although I have a French name, I am one of those unfortunate people who does not speak French. My only credibility is that our seven children have all been postated in French and they are bilingual.
In our hearings in Halifax, we heard from members of an association of French-speaking people outside Quebec. I wanted to reinforce what you were saying about the numbers in francophone institutions out in the west especially. Certainly, in Saint-Boniface college and Faculté Saint-Jean at the University of Alberta, the numbers are in the hundreds only.
I should also like to pick up on Senator Andreychuk's comments with respect to francophones versus anglophones or others who are trying to learn the French language. When I was involved in the elementary schools in Edmonton in the 1960s, we moved from one hour of French, to bilingual schools, to immersion schools, to francophone schools. In the early days, in the 1960s, 85 per cent of those children were francophone and 15 per cent were others who were learning the French language. Within 20 years, that had moved to exactly the opposite -- 15 per cent were French Canadian and 85 per cent were other Canadians. I saw that as a wonderful improvement. It was not that the numbers of French decreased but, rather, that others were seeing the value of the second language.
Speaking of the University of Ottawa, you will know that, at one time, Collège Saint-Jean in Edmonton was affiliated with the University of Alberta. It has now become a full-fledged faculty of that university. Unfortunately, during the years when I was chancellor there, they also dropped their second-language requirement, apart from a few programs.
While the numbers are small, there is a beneficial effect, particularly in training teachers. We are fortunate that we have there a number of students from Quebec who have helped to create an interesting mix. They have come to learn a bit of English and to learn the culture of the west. On the other hand, the culture of the Québécois has rubbed off on some of their fellow students.
While we are feeling a bit more satisfied, we have a long way to go. A comprehensive study would help.
I would agree with Senator Andreychuk that, especially with the west, in view of the numbers of non-francophones who are wanting to learn the language, we need to know of their needs, too. We do not have the opportunity for an immersion in the culture.
Back in the days when I was on school boards, we had a wonderful exchange program but the money for that has dried up. That was a wonderful experience for the children. We need to get back to something like that. The problem of many of the students in the west, francophone or not, is that once they have finished their graduate studies, they do not have the opportunities to use their second language as much as they should.
That is a bit of background from the west. Again, I apologize. We are racing from one committee to another today. That is why I was late. I shall read your brief.
[Translation]
Mr. Bordeleau: I wanted to make two brief comments in reply to the comments made by Senator Forest. I would simply like to draw your attention to a program the AELF has set up, which has been in existence for several years now. You will see references to it in your kit. It is a student exchange program.
Each year, about 15 student groups from everywhere in Canada are sent to a school in a city in the province of Quebec on this exchange program. Each year, we can reach approximately 300 to 400 students in this way. The comments we hear from these children, from these young people, confirm what you have said, Senator Forest: having spent time in Quebec, and vice versa for our students, has allowed many to change their perspective. The second thing I wanted to say concerns faculty training, because you referred to the Faculté Saint-Jean. Where faculty training and development is concerned, too often, we are limited by provincial barriers. There is a very small number of provinces that offer services to their francophone professors.
How can we remove these provincial blinders and establish programs that would be offered throughout the country? Allow me to mention another activity we have been sponsoring for a number of years. They are a series of faculty development workshops held in the City of Quebec over a period of two weeks that are taken by about 125 professors from all over Canada. During that two-week period, they come to renew themselves pedagogically, as well as linguistically and culturally. The idea of breaking through territorial limits to make programs more available to all interested French-speaking faculty seems like something that could be examined in the context of your study in order to arrive at more innovative means of dispensing services.
[English]
Senator DeWare: I want to welcome Mr. Rioux here today. He comes from New Brunswick and has spent a long time there. I am from New Brunswick as well. I come from Moncton, where we have the University of Moncton. I cannot believe it has been 30 years since the university began its operations. It has since expanded. As well, we have five French community colleges in New Brunswick.
I was on the school board in 1968 when we decided to introduce total French immersion into our school system. Thirty years ago, there was a tremendous debate as to whether we should go with total French immersion or with both languages. I agreed that we should go with both languages. They went with total French immersion, or at least the majority did, and we are still there. In a bilingual province, we have not gone to both languages yet in grade 1. However, there are two immersion programs in New Brunswick. One is early immersion and the other is late immersion, which starts in grade 7. I think both programs have merit. I have had grandchildren go through both. They suggest that the early immersion program is the best because you think in French and you think in English. If you go with the late immersion, then you think in English and you have to translate. I guess you pick it up better because of your age.
I think we are still where we were 30 years ago with the immersion program in New Brunswick, and that is very unfortunate. The average shows that most families are opting into the immersion program if the children are able to adapt to it. Then we find that the children themselves are asking to go into the late immersion program.
It is an interesting scenario in New Brunswick. At least the majority of our people are beginning to speak both languages. I think you can attest to that.
Mr. Rioux: There has been a lot of progress. In the New Brunswick school system, approximately 80 per cent of the students who go through the school system will be bilingual at the end of grade 12. They have a chance to go forward at the university level. If they want to go into a French university program, we have the University of Moncton, which has existed for 34 years. It began its operations in 1963. The University of New Brunswick also offers courses in French. Therefore, there is no problem for students in New Brunswick to get an EDUCATION in both languages.
[Translation]
I might add that a great deal of progress has been made since then in New Brunswick, be it Fredericton, Saint John or in the valley of the Miramichi, where francophone students have been given access to French-language teaching; there has been considerable progress. When the first French school was set up in Fredericton some 25 years ago, we had about 32 students and now there are more than 700 registered in French school in Fredericton. Before that, francophones went to English school, so there has been considerable progress.
The Deputy Chair: On page 3 of your brief, you say that the availability of post-secondary institutions is indispensable and I agree with you entirely. That is why I am concerned for Bishop's University. I do not know if you are familiar with Quebec, but why has an anglophone community survived -- unfortunately it is getting smaller, but it is still there -- in the Eastern Townships? It is precisely because they had this EDUCATIONal home base. That remains the basis of taking root, of survival. That is why it is so important.
Earlier you mentioned in your presentation the fact that the francophone population is of course dispersed, sparse, et cetera. To have students present at the post-secondary level, there must necessarily be some at the elementary level, who go on to the secondary level. I have known the ACELF for a long time now. According to your most recent evaluations, estimates or observations, there has been progress in that elementary schools have been opened in English-speaking provinces; let's set the case of New Brunswick apart for now.
In the west, this sort of progress is doled out bit by bit, as if with an eyedropper. If you don't have students at the elementary level, you won't find them at the post-secondary level. What is your assessment at this time? I expect you would have a positive assessment, but perhaps developments are far from sufficient.
Mr. Bordeleau: What you refer to has been recognized for a long time, with the exception of New Brunswick. I would like to use Ontario as an example, with your permission, Madam Deputy Chair.
As long as Ontario did not have a complete network of French-language secondary schools, francophone participation rates in secondary EDUCATION were clearly inferior to those of the general population. Drop-out rates for francophones in secondary schools were at a particularly high and worrisome level. But the network of French-language secondary schools in Ontario was completed, and from 1963 to 1985 we managed to correct that gap.
Participation rates are now equal. At the college level, the participation rates of francophones in college studies compares adequately to figures for the general population; however, those rates remain lower than those of the general student population at the university level.
I am among those who have published data on this that show that the lack of availability of programs offered in French at any level, be it the elementary or secondary levels in Western Canada, or at the university level throughout Canada, cause lower participation rates. There is a particularly significant correlation between the availability of a program in French and the rate of participation of francophones at that level of EDUCATION.
To complete your comment concerning western Canada, I am among those who think that elementary and secondary school networks are being set up much too slowly, in conditions that often force the clientele to move, to wait, to get impatient or to opt for immersion, which is not the answer for francophones, or for English language schools.
The Deputy Chair: To what extent have budget cuts affected post-secondary services in French in the rest of Canada? We went to Regina where there is a whole French department. We were told that the budget cuts and the rposttions in federal transfer payments have had a negative impact on their operations. Is that a unique case or is that also true in the rest of Canada? I'm talking about francophone resources.
Mr. Bordeleau: The additional funds that are known as the envelope for bilingualism, which are allocated to programs and courses offered in French in Ontario, to use that as an example, have been for all practical purposes eliminated. In Ontario, this is due to the decline in federal transfer payments to the province; I can certainly use that as an example. Further to that, what we note in the institutions outside Quebec which we are familiar with, certainly, is that the rate at which these programs are being established has either gone into a steep decline, or has come to a complete halt. How can this be corrected in light of current financial conditions? This situation concerns me greatly.
Mr. Rioux: To add to what Mr. Bordeleau has just said, in the Maritime provinces, with the exception of New Brunswick, of course, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island now have French-language or Acadian school boards. However, the presence of Acadian of French language school boards in these provinces does not mean that the battle has been won. My daughter is the Director of the Fédération des parents acadiens de la Nouvelle-Écosse. When we try to show Acadians that they would be much better served in a totally French-language school, they believe that it should be a bilingual school. In a bilingual school, the French become assimilated. One has only to look at assimilation rates. It's psychological. No one wants to feel different from the others. When the majority is English-speaking, one wants to feel that one is in the majority. Studies have shown this. So, the battle is far from over.
Rposttions are being carried out without regard for particular circumstances. Programs are being cut across the board, horizontally. Often, there are few enough students already in places affected by the rposttions. This is a serious problem at this time. The Commission nationale des parents francophones, for instance, published a study last fall which showed that the funds given to the provinces by the federal government were not necessarily being used to meet the needs that exist.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. If we need additional information, we will get in touch with you.
Mr. Rioux: We will leave with you a copy of the minutes of the regional symposia we held in 1996-97 on French-language schools and cultural identity. They contain a whole series of recommendations concerning Post-Secondary education. We don't have enough copies for everyone, because of our difficult financial situation. As soon as the minutes of the national symposium are ready, we will send them on to you.
Mr. Richard Landry, President, Fédération autonome du collégial (Independent College Federation): Madam Deputy Chair, thank you for having invited us to express our viewpoint on Post-Secondary education. I'm accompanied by Mr. Mario Laforêt who is our Vice-President for Communications. Given the very short time we had to prepare this brief, we were obliged to limit ourselves to what we know best: Quebec's network of CEGEPs and other colleges, and conditions affecting the exercise of our teaching profession and studies by our students.
The Fédération autonome du collégial is a union of approximately 4,000 professors at 17 CEGEPs. It is present in all major regions of Quebec.
The main purposes of the FAC, founded in June 1988, are to defend and to develop the economic, social, teaching and professional interests of the professors it represents.
In our opinion, study and analysis of the EDUCATIONal system must extend beyond strictly academic considerations. It must be emphasized how special a means EDUCATION is in breaking the spiral of poverty, both financial and cultural. In this regard, what has been called a democratization of EDUCATION, beginning in the 1960s, has given Quebec's residents a powerful lever for improving their lot.
Any transformation of EDUCATION must necessarily also take into account the social and economic phenomena that threaten access to high quality EDUCATION. Although significant progress has been made, in Quebec there is a high proportion of individuals whose knowledge of reading and writing is only imperfect. Overall, this proportion (44 per cent) is higher than in Canada as a whole (38 per cent).
Given the evolution of technology and the globalization of markets, it is clear that inequalities in training will result in an increasing dichotomy between socio-economic profiles and an accompanying sharper division between rich and poor.
Moreover, since EDUCATION increases the possibility of being part of the labour market, since EDUCATION is a very important factor in being part of social and economic life, it must also be recognized that Post-Secondary education has become an individual and collective necessity.
More than ever, EDUCATION must be considered a high-priority investment of which the yield will certainly exceed the costs in terms of economic and social progress. The geographic and financial accessibility of CEGEPs have allowed generations of young people to pursue higher EDUCATION. As well, the presence of CEGEPs with both university preparation and technical streams in all regions of Quebec is a valuable social achievement that should be preserved.
A familiar but disquieting question clearly illustrates the concern inherent in our profession: "I'm teaching, but are they learning?" EDUCATIONal institutions exist precisely in order to allow individuals to learn, to go beyond their immediate experience in a stimulating environment. CEGEPs are indispensable places of transition, development and integration. It has been shown that the student-professor relationship is the most determining factor in this process, in studies by Bloom, among others. Professors thus have heavy responsibilities. We cannot just do a job.
The conditions governing the exercise of our profession include the need to exercise independence and responsibility, which we want, of course. Attacking either of these factors, or devaluing the public image of the profession is therefore especially insidious. And we know, unfortunately, that for some 15 years or more the image of the teaching profession has not only been tarnished, but sometimes systematically denigrated by our own provincial government, which is utterly deplorable. When the CEGEP system was set up the fact that the teaching profession had to be valued was understood.
The fact that CEGEPs do not correspond exactly to any other EDUCATIONal system makes those who believe only in imports shudder. However, CEGEPs have been instrumental in the democratization and modernization of Quebec's EDUCATIONal system.
For several years CEGEP professors have observed many problems in their day-to-day work. Overcrowded classes and the overall increase in the workload have made it harder for us to teach, particularly since we must constantly revise our teaching practices either because of technological breakthroughs or important demographic changes, especially in large urban centres.
The contribution of the CEGEP system to the overall progress of individual EDUCATION is undeniable. We must respond to students' need for independence and knowledge on their arrival in this flexible, diversified environment, which is a significant change from their previous EDUCATIONal experience. This is what characterizes Post-Secondary education. As well as being important places of transition between secondary school and university or the labour market, CEGEPs promote the acquisition of two competencies for any individual: independence, and an ability to adapt to changes or to make changes as required. In addition, the coexistence of the university preparation and technical streams conveys the social value of equality, which in these times is crucial. CEGEPs are therefore a major contributing factor in individual and collective development.
We want to reemphasize the importance of professional recognition and appreciation. Excluding professors or relegating them to second place can only result in further deterioration of the working conditions in our CEGEPs and of the conditions governing the exercise of our profession.
High-quality EDUCATION is a choice that professors have never called into question. There must therefore be an end to the opposition between the exercise of our profession and our working conditions. Professors are not disembodied beings who can easily transcend their social condition. If society is to regain confidence in its EDUCATIONal system, the people who work in that system must feel that their work and their rights are respected.
Given the fearsome budget rposttions being imposed on us, we are not being asked to do more with less, but to do more with nothing!
One of the priorities we have always defended is academic success. In order for success to become a reality, certain conditions must be met, including recognition of professional independence, better support for students, and stable, diversified teams of professors who are anxious continuously to update their knowledge. Underinvestment in EDUCATION does not follow that logic, however, and cannot be reconciled with a policy of access and success for the greatest possible number of young people and adults. Underfunding contradicts the fight against failure, dropping out and illiteracy, and jeopardizes the objectives of democratization. The fundamental mandate of EDUCATION cannot be subjected to the laws of the market. If there is one thing we can no longer afford, it is ignorance and bureaucratic mediocrity. No effort must therefore be spared in order to shelter EDUCATION from an increasingly harsh capitalism.
EDUCATION cannot be limited to supplying skilled labour to a dehumanizing, neo-conservative economy. Utilitarian EDUCATION cannot be a vision for society. No miracle solution can replace open, democratic, accessible, free EDUCATION, at the heart of which is the student-professor relationship.
It must be understood that, where EDUCATION is concerned, investments are more important than expenditures. The FAC therefore considers that broad, free access to EDUCATION, as proposed when the CEGEPs were set up, must remain a government priority.
This access to high-quality EDUCATION depends on several factors, including the presence of CEGEPs and the availability of services; it also depends on intrinsic conditions governing the exercise of the teaching profession, including faculty stability, professional development and research. We believe that the multiplication of employment statuses and conditions harm the vision of EDUCATIONal institutions. We also consider it vital that real possibilities for professional development be equivalent for all professors in all regions.
In our opinion, 25 years after the publication of the Parent report, the government must continue the process of democratizing college EDUCATION and make EDUCATION its main priority. Secondary EDUCATION is no longer enough; individuals must now hold further diplomas in order to obtain decent employment. In addition, the present governments, both federal and provincial and each in their own way, do not seem to realize that they are hacking to bits the achievements of the democratization of EDUCATION. We consider EDUCATION a matter of social justice that cannot be subjected to accounting imperatives.
The government must therefore, first, facilitate access to the network of CEGEPs and other colleges for the greatest possible number of young people and adults, according to the principle of continuing EDUCATION, by, among other things, making available suitable student loans and scholarships; encouraging applications, especially by women, in non-traditional trades, in order to promote equal opportunity; developing mechanisms to encourage individuals with disadvantaged backgrounds to pursue their EDUCATION; and developing a framework policy on recognizing acquired experience, including EDUCATIONal and work experience, a matter you discussed earlier this morning.
Second, the government must encourage access to the occupational stream of college EDUCATION by recognizing the value of and promoting both general and specialized training of this type, and by organizing a far-reaching, ongoing, national and provincial advertising campaign.
Rposted government grants to public colleges, at a time when the student population should be increasing given the economic situation, may well mean a combination of so-called solutions that are unacceptable.
As a result, sources of funding other than government grants are already being sought. We note, first of all, that the search for sources of funding is not new. As well as providing made-to-measure training to the private sector, colleges seek funding in the form of tuition, registration and related fees. This so-called new financial pressure raises the socio-economic barrier and means that only 24.2 per cent of young Quebec residents have access to the Post-Secondary education we consider essential. Nor is it surprising that 34.9 per cent of college students apply for government financial assistance in the form of loans and grants.
The student financial assistance system must continue to promote equal opportunity and equal conditions of study for all students wishing to continue their EDUCATION. In theory, this fundamental principle must be retained; in practice it must be improved.
It is important that this system provide greater access to success by making the necessary resources available to students so that they can study full-time, which is not always the case at present. A system that is intended to be accessible does not discriminate in any way on the basis of students' socio-economic background or financial resources, either before their studies, which discourages registration, or during them, thus contributing to dropping out.
Financial assistance must not simply delay the impact of socio- economic inequality by means of insurmountable Post-Secondary education indebtedness. The issuance of grants, rather than loans, must be resolutely encouraged.
In conclusion, whatever may be said about CEGEPs, the number of individuals who have obtained Post-Secondary education thanks to the existence of these colleges is a measurable success. Another success, less directly measurable but nevertheless real, is the constitution of an postated population, which is a guarantee of economic growth and social and cultural development.
Providing access to Post-Secondary education for the greatest possible number of individuals and making a choice for their success is a matter of individual and collective pride. In our opinion, it is a choice that leads us forward. We are at your disposal for questions or points of clarification.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Can you explain to me what you mean by utilitarian EDUCATION? It is important that we understand your choice of words. To my mind, there has always been some dissidence between the two aspects of college training, especially the technical stream, and the more general training; you represent both sides.
I have seen the evolution of the technical stream toward a type of partnership with industries. I suppose your comment about utilitarian EDUCATION was not meant to criticize the partnerships with various economic sectors; the printing field, for example. I think that in Montreal one of the CEGEPs has specialized in this field and has the latest equipment. This allows young people to learn with the necessary tools, and the same thing has been done for glasswork. There are several specialized CEGEPs. That is why I feel it is important that we find out exactly what your concerns are.
Mr. Landry: When referring to utilitarian EDUCATION, we did not mean that all partnerships with industries should be abolished. Allow me a facetious reply; a utilitarian school is the one where philosophy is no longer taught because it serves no real purpose. We are against the concept of a school that only responds to immediate, narrow, specific requests from the private sector, for instance. I am in the computer science field and I am in a good position to know that businesses regularly place orders with us. They do not understand why we insist on having our students study languages, philosophy and social sciences. Nor do they understand why we give them a fairly broad technical training and why we do not concentrate strictly on the latest computer programs or the most recent hardware.
Our opposition to the concept of utilitarian EDUCATION is directed at EDUCATION wherein open-mindedness and freedom as ultimate goals are no longer fundamental. We must avoid becoming a production facility, strictly a plant for the production of manpower. If we in that direction I think we will have a very sad and bleak society. First and foremost, we want to teach young people to think, and that is what is most important. When they leave us, they have to be able to continue to develop on their own. They have to have learned to think, to be critical, to develop their own free will. This is to a certain extent in conflict with what we call utilitarian EDUCATION. Nor do we seek however, an EDUCATION where we would only teach abstract ideals with no connection to modern society, or to new technologies. Of course, that is not what we mean.
EDUCATION must have a certain independence, freedom, and must put a certain distance between itself and other sectors of society, just as other groups in society must have their own individual characteristics, their own culture. It is in that sense that we are opposed to utilitarian EDUCATION.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: You refer to the Parent report where it was felt that the technical side would no doubt prevail; finally, this is not what happened. I would like to hear your comments because all the students chose to go to the higher level and I am thinking, for instance, of engineering technicians. I know that at the present time there is a shortage of technical specialists, whereas it may be difficult to find positions for engineers. What would you recommend in terms of better development of talents and a better appreciation of the professional and technical stream?
I studied in the professional and technical stream, and the students who chose the technical stream were always the poor kids, the ones who were put down, the ones who were not considered all that intelligent. This all begins before they arrive in your classrooms, and I wonder what means could be taken to upgrade the image of the professional and technical sector.
Mr. Landry: Improving the sector's image, that is a key expression in this whole issue. You are correct when you say that in the Parent report it had been expected that the technical sector would prevail in CEGEPs. You have to remember, though, that at the time, a universitary EDUCATION was seen as a virtual panacea. So parents would willy-nilly push their children into medicine or engineering, for social reasons understandable at the time. But today, there is indeed a certain shortage of technical specialists. There is talk about a national and provincial promotion campaign, and also of a campaign to encourage young women to chose non-traditional trades. Unfortunately, this attempt to refurbish the trades comes up against this idea, which your so aptly describe that the best students go to university and those of lesser talents go into the technical sector, even though we know full well that today this is entirely false. There has been some progress in the course of the past few years.
However, there is a limit to how much you can change through campaign to promote certain fields, to the amount of pressure you can exert on young people to push them toward the technical sector rather than the general university preparation studies. The new reality has to be accepted gradually. And if we exert too much pressure to send young people into technical studies we may err in the other direction, which is to say that we would be sending students into technical studies who should go to university. We have to be extremely cautious. I think we can improve the image of the technical sector through transparency, by making the reality of the more technical sectors and of technologies more visible. The rise of computers helped to make the technical sector more attractive. Today, almost everyone has a computer at home, access to the Internet, et cetera. We realize that is one of the factors that has made our students interested in technology and trades. Computers have given technology standing. I think things have got off in the right direction. I mean that as a society, we have begun the task of improving the image of technology. Parents are no longer as embarrassed to send their kids to study in the technical sector, and that is all to the good. But we have to stay the course and keep the pressure up. Now, as to the best means to achieve this attitudinal change, there are no magic recipes. It will happen through the social integration of these realities.
[English]
Senator Forest: We have heard much about technical training versus a general EDUCATION. You are quite right in saying that we need students who can think critically, and so on. It is to be hoped that some of that can be incorporated into the technical schools.
In British Columbia, in particular, the trend used to be to get a technical EDUCATION first, work for a few years, and then go to university. The trend has reversed now. University students are finding that a technical EDUCATION is needed, and it seems that that is the best of both worlds. Many colleges were finding that, in partnership with business, they needed to establish their own code of ethics to ensure that industry was not driving the type of EDUCATION they were providing.
What is your response to that? Is that a problem at the CEGEP level?
[Translation]
Mr. Landry: I think it depends on the sectors rather than the teaching. There are some technological sectors where relations with the private sector, the partnerships we were talking about earlier, have been established very smoothly. It also sometimes depends on the regions involved. The regional dimension is important and I think it can enlighten us a great deal. We think it is an excellent thing to try to benefit from the particular characteristics, businesses and social organization of a region and this works rather well in most areas.
Things sometimes get complicated when these specific regional characteristics become too overwhelming. In some sectors, business, the economic organization, is so strong that it becomes invasive; that is why the topic of utilitarian EDUCATION comes up now, because in some areas there has been enormous pressure in this regard and we must speak up against that situation. However, as we decry the economic invasion of schools, we promote this famous partnership, and as you were saying we need a certain ethics code which everyone would adhere to, with very specific rules and especially, I believe, very specific objectives.
Everything is moving so quickly nowadays, especially technology, that sometimes it is difficult to set objectives and we just do not do it because we feel that in any case they will be obsolete before we have even clearly defined them. That is a poor philosophy. Objectives first of all have to be established very clearly for all concerned. Certain conditions have to be agreed to by the stakeholders and, one hopes, respected. On that basis, problems may not eliminated but they will at least be lessened.
[English]
Senator Forest: On the third page of your brief you say:
We believe that the multiplication of employment legislation and the resulting conditions harm the vision of EDUCATIONal institutions.
What do you mean by that?
[Translation]
Mr. Landry: You are talking about employment status, if I understood correctly. Colleges, and universities to a certain extent, have to grapple with this problem of the diversity of employment statuses. There is of course the full-time permanent professor, the part-time professor, the lecturer, and in each case the constraints and obligations are different. This means that the lecturer does not have the same obligations nor the same development possibilities, nor the same status to intervene with students. I will give you a specific example so that then you can understand why we are bringing this up.
Since last year, colleges in Quebec have been attempting to hire lecturers rather than part-time professors as they used to do in the past. The lecturers do not have to provide the support or follow-up to students, and for that reason they are paid less. We think it is absolutely scandalous to hire professors and pay them less, and say to them: "You will work less, you will not provide the students with support." This is an absolute aberration. That is a very specific example involving students. Of course, those professors also have no rights insofar as professional development is concerned, nor to a multitude of other things that would be conducive to stabilizing the staff. A stable team is very important. And this stable team can follow through on the objectives we were discussing earlier.
We cannot understand and we do not want to understand or accept that in order to save money colleges are hiring professors who are asked to provide less support, when we hear so much about the dropout rate and the large number of failures in the colleges.
The Deputy Chair: I would like to ask a question. You told us that you represented the teaching staff of 17 colleges; are they all private colleges?
Mr. Landry: They are all public colleges, with the exception of one private college.
The Deputy Chair: Which one?
Mr. Landry: The Frère Untel college.
The Deputy Chair: I would like you to very clearly understand the objectives that our special committee is pursuing very clearly. You talk about the status of teaching and your concern about the recognition and appreciation given to the role of professors. Is your point of view shared by the staff in the 80 or 100 other CEGEPs in Quebec?
Mr. Landry: Broadly speaking, yes. On the matter of independence, appreciation and adequate funding, I can guarantee that yes, we all agree on that. Generally speaking, those are considerations that could well be ratified by all of the representatives of the college unions. I do not think I would be far out of line in claiming that in general, yes, we agree on those things.
The Deputy Chair: Has the Fédération des cégeps never carried out a study on the value of CEGEPs, as prerequisites for university entrance, as compared to the requirements in other provinces for university entrance? Are they equivalent, or does one have positive effects, as compared to negative effects for the others? I suppose that could vary according to the fields involved. Have you done this kind of assessment?
Mr. Landry: I must admit I am a bit stymied by your question about comparing CEGEPs to systems in other provinces. As I said in the beginning, we were only advised that we were to appear last week, and so we had to get ready quickly. Be that as it may, we have not really carried out a study as such. I know that certain studies exist in this regard but I could not really comment on them at this time. If you look at the rise in university admissions since CEGEPs were created, there has definitely been marked progress.
The Deputy Chair: The number of women being admitted has increased, in any case.
Mr. Landry: Yes, and that is not a negligible difference. I would not like to compare classical colleges and CEGEPs; so many comparisons are made that tell us nothing, in the final analysis. Insofar as technical training is concerned, we know that entrepreneurs in the private sector are very satisfied with CEGEP students. At the university level, I believe they perform well, and that this is generally recognized. Are things better than they were? That is very difficult to say.
The Deputy Chair: Are there are more students going from CEGEPs to university, or is there an equal number who are admitted to university on some other basis?
Mr. Landry: Oh, there are definitely more who come from CEGEPs than from anywhere else, that is clear. I don't have the figures at hand, but I am sure I could say 80 per cent or more without being mistaken.
[English]
Senator DeWare: What is the student population of all the CEGEPs?
[Translation]
Mr. Landry: There might be approximately 150,000 students coming from CEGEPs, subject to verification.
The Deputy Chair: From your CEGEPs?
Mr. Landry: From all CEGEPs.
The Deputy Chair: I would have thought there would be more.
Mr. Landry: We would have to check. There are approximately 55 colleges with an average of 3,000 students, which would mean 150,000 to 200,000 students at the most.
The Deputy Chair: I simply wanted to say in conclusion, in order to make sure we understand each other, that especially in Quebec, some have felt that we wanted to put our fingers in the provincial EDUCATION pie. That is not our purpose. Not at all. We are really and truly reviewing this matter from the perspective of the federal responsibilities involved that clearly affect aboriginals, and the issue of federal transfer payments to the provinces, which seems to have been very difficult for EDUCATIONal institutions. There are provinces where EDUCATIONal institutions did not have to bear the brunt of the transfer cuts, but there are others where the situation seems to have been different. This has caused serious problems.
We are also studying the matter of student aid, because this also involves federal funds. I want to reassure you that our intent is not to butt our nose into someone else's business. However, to be able to correct what seems to be most problematic in the area of Post-Secondary education, it is important that we ask ourselves certain questions.
Mr. Landry: I thank you, it was a pleasure.
Mr. Léon Germain, for the Fédération étudiante universitaire du Québec: Madam Deputy Chair, I want to mention the presence of Eric Tétrault who represents the Cycles supérieurs du Québec, which is also affiliated with the Fédération étudiante universitaire du Québec. Thus, I will refer any questions about graduate studies and university research to Eric Tétrault.
Mr. Germain: I am also accompanied by Alexis Deschênes, vice-President of the Fédération étudiante collégiale du Québec. The Quebec student college federation is an organization of 24 CEGEP student associations from 13 regions in Quebec. It was founded in 1990, and it promotes, protects, develops and defends the interests, rights and concerns of college students in Quebec. Accessibility continues to be the FECQ's principal objective. According to the FECQ's position, all citizens should have access to higher learning, whatever their socio-economic conditions or that of their parents. The FECQ represents 95,000 members who fervently uphold the principle of EDUCATION as a social and economic investment.
The Fédération étudiante universitaire du Québec is a political organization representing more than 125,000 students from all regions in Quebec. It also was founded in 1990. Its mandate is to defend the rights and interests of students vis-à-vis governments and other stakeholders in the field of EDUCATION. Since our inception, we have devoted our efforts to defending humanistic EDUCATION as a societal choice. Our main purpose is to defend our members before, during and after their stay in university. This means that we are concerned by issues involving academic matters, employment and the qualification of the young students who go through university.
We are very happy to have this opportunity to address members of the Senate. However, with all due respect, we wish to emphasize at the outset that we feel rather uncomfortable discussing issues that seem to us to fall under Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction.
The Deputy Chair: Are you somewhat reassured?
Mr. Germain: Yes. However, we will nevertheless limit ourselves in this brief we are submitting to you to matters that are exclusively under federal jurisdiction, for the moment. Thus, we will not be referring to financial assistance in the case of Quebec, for instance. We won't talk about the development of programs of studies, new technologies, their implementation, distance EDUCATION, continuing EDUCATION, cooperative EDUCATION programs, adult EDUCATION, part-time studies, et cetera. We will limit our discussion to matters such as post-secondary funding in Quebec and national EDUCATION standards, a topic which has now been on the table for several years. I want to point out that our two federations decided to submit a joint brief perhaps to give more weight to the arguments we will be putting forward. I will give the floor to Alexis Deschênes who will begin the presentation; his topic is the funding of Post-Secondary education.
Mr. Alexis Deschênes, Vice-President of the Fédération étudiante collégiale du Québec: Madam Deputy Chair, we will be discussing federal transfers to Post-Secondary education. Federal transfers to Quebec have been declining steadily since the beginning of the 1990s. They went from about 28.9 per cent of Quebec's budget revenues at the time to approximately 17.6 per cent this year. In the last Quebec budget, rposttions to the federal transfer payments represented 60 per cent of budget rposttions for 1997-98. Moreover, since 1993, half of the federal government's spending cuts have been attributable to cuts to provincial transfer payments. Obviously, everything points to the fact that the rposttion of the federal deficit is being carried out on the backs of provincial governments. It is clear that the Liberal government is doing what it accused the Conservative Party of doing for over 9 years, in its Red Book.
Last year, when the Canadian Health and Social Transfer was created, transfers for health, Post-Secondary education and social assistance were cut by $2.5 billion for 1996-97. The Canadian Social Transfer will be rposted by $4.5 billion in 1997-98, which means a net decrease of $7 billion over two years of Canadian investments in priority social programs.
These net rposttions in the funding allocated to Post-Secondary education have direct repercussions on the quality of college and university training in Quebec, as well as on its accessibility. For 1997-98, federal cuts to the funding of social programs will translate into a shortfall of $1.4 billion for Quebec. At the college and university level this means a net decrease of over $280 million for the same year. Moreover, it is important to mention that the federal government funds approximately 13 per cent of the Quebec university system, which is less than the Quebec student population contributes as a whole, about 15 per cent.
The FECQ and the FEUQ feel that EDUCATION is the cornerstone of the long-term development of a society; it is in fact the driving force of our social, cultural, democratic and economic development. According to Statistics Canada, candidates had to have a minimum of 14 to 15 years of schooling for 65 per cent of the new jobs created in Canada between 1990 and 1993. And the predictions of the Conseil des sciences et de la technologie du Quebec (Quebec science and technology council) indicate that from now to the beginning of the next century, university training will be needed to fill 65 per cent of the new jobs that will be created.
In light of this situation, it is obvious to the FECQ and the FEUQ that the federal Liberal government has two options if it wants to meet its commitments in EDUCATION. On the one hand, it could reinvest in EDUCATION all of the amounts that have been cut from transfers to Post-Secondary education. While it seems improbable that the government will choose this option, it could allocate to the Quebec government the federal tax points corresponding to post-secondary EDUCATION transfer payments. This last proposal expresses a Quebec consensus, as pointed out in this motion adopted unanimously February 2, 1995, by Quebec's National Assembly:
Whereas the Quebec National Assembly expresses its solidarity with all stakeholders in the field of EDUCATION by denouncing the cuts to post-secondary EDUCATION being considered by the federal government and asks that the government allocate the tax points corresponding to the current transfer payments to Quebec for Post-Secondary education.
Pursuant to this, the FECQ and the FEUQ consider it essential for Quebec's future development that this unanimous proposal be respected by the federal government and that it cease any kind of interference in the essential area of EDUCATION.
Moreover, since the controversy surrounding Bill C-76, which followed upon the 1995 federal budget and gave the federal government carte blanche to interfere in social programs, the matter of Canadian standards cannot be seen as separate from the issue of the funding of programs. That is why, in a moment, Mr. Léon Germain will be discussing Canadian EDUCATION standards in the last part of our brief.
I will now give the floor to Mr. Eric Tétrault who will be talking about the funds allocated to the organizations that provide research grants.
Mr. Eric Tétrault, representing the graduate level, Fédération étudiante universitaire du Québec: In a gesture which can hardly be justified, in its 1995 budget, the federal government rposted the funds allocated to the three granting councils, i.e. the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and the Medical Research Council of Canada, for a period of three years. These organizations, whose mandate is to promote university research and advanced studies, as well as to provide assistance in the form of grants or subsidies to these sectors, will thus see their funding cut by $108 million over the next three years.
According to the Canadian College and University Association, that rposttion in federal assistance to research translates into global cuts of 14 per cent for the NSERC and the SSHRC, and of 10 per cent for the MRC. You have here detailed information about the cuts.
Finance Minister Paul Martin stated the following when he tabled his budget in 1994:
... granting councils would not affected by spending cuts given the priority the government assigns to research and development (R&D).
He went on to add that:
... the government recognizes that investment in R & D is one way to put public funds to good use in the creation of new businesses and new jobs.
Furthermore, during the extensive consultation process undertaken nationwide in the fall of 1994 on the science and technology strategy, many stakeholders from all sectors demanded that the budgets of the three granting councils be, at the very least, maintained and at most, that they be increased to cover indirect research costs. Participants agreed, moreover, that achievements at the federal level should be consolidated. In particular, the system whereby a peer committee evaluates and allocates grants and bursaries was praised for its efficiency and impartiality.
At present, Canada lags behind in terms of R&D investment. The OECD compared research and development expenditures and found that as a percentage of GDP, Canada ranked 14th among the 24 OECD member countries. Enormous sums of money would have to be invested in this area to catch up with the leading OECD countries that are very active in R&D. Despite an awareness of its poor record in this area, the federal government decided to slash direct grants and bursaries awarded for research and for the training of teacher-researchers and student-researchers at the university level.
In the opinion of the FEUQ and the FECQ, this situation is unacceptable. Moreover, the announcement in the last federal Liberal budget of the establishment of a foundation for innovation does not, in our opinion, do anything to improve the overall situation and we believe this to be the case for several reasons. First of all, using public funds to finance a private foundation does not bode well for the funding of EDUCATION. In addition, the foundation would be involved only in cutting-edge research, particularly in fields like medicine which are already among the most highly subsidized fields of all. Furthermore, funding of cutting-edge medical research comes at the expense of the social sciences and humanities. Finally, when it comes to funding university research, the priority now clearly seems to be project-oriented, not basic research.
Mr. Landry: I will now outline for you our position on Canadian EDUCATION standards, an issue that we wanted to discuss here with you today, given that we have been debating the subject since 1995. It was already an issue when the 1995 budget was tabled.
In our presentation, we referred to the report of the National EDUCATION Standards Committee drawn up by the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology. The report recommends the introduction of Canada-wide EDUCATION standards. The FECQ and the FEUQ are not formally opposed to the principle underlying the drafting of Canadian standards. On the contrary, this could be a very positive development. Indeed, we support the reasons for drafting minimum professional standards and qualification standards as described in the report.
However, we do object to bringing the standards of excellence in university training in line with industrial standards. This is one of the themes running through the report that I just referred to. For instance, the report states the following:
Industry holds the key to progress in that it defines occupational skills and standards of excellence and as such, it must play a more active role.
This statement is included in the report's conclusion to underscore its importance. We must express our clear opposition to bringing university standards in line with industry standards. To draw a parallel with what the Fédération autonome du collégial said earlier, the ties between businesses and universities must be seen as a value-added, not as an essential component of universities as such. They must maintain their independence from the private sector. Indeed, what sets universities apart is very likely their independent spirit.
On other hand, the FECQ and the FEUQ are not prepared to tolerate federal interference in EDUCATION, a field which comes under provincial jurisdiction. This interference is evident in the proposal to set up an agency to draft and apply Canadian standards. The federations are opposed to the idea of two private agencies, namely the Canadian EDUCATION Council and the Canadian Forum on Learning, assuming responsibility for establishing and applying these standards. This is mentioned in the report. In fact, this is one of the report's main recommendations.
With respect to EDUCATION, the Canadian Constitution clearly states that this is a provincial responsibility:
Each provincial legislature shall have the exclusive right to legislate in matters of EDUCATION.
By taking the initiative of drafting Canadian standards and setting up agencies to define and apply these standards, the federal government is clearly infringing on Quebec's jurisdiction.
This being the case, two private Canadian organizations have no right to be the ones making decisions about something as important as standards of excellence. Awarding this mandate to private agencies isolates Quebec and limits the impact it can have on any new directions taken.
The recommendations on Canadian standards that were announced by the committee are unacceptable to us, since they call for the use of private agencies on the one hand, and federal government agencies on the other hand. However, and this could be seen as a counter proposal on our part, the committee's recommendations might be acceptable to us if the mandate to draft such standards was respectful of Quebec's jurisdiction. If this mandate were awarded to the Council of Ministers of EDUCATION, Canada, this would not only be in keeping with the Constitution, but it would also truly ensure that Quebecers control this particular area. To avoid any kind of interference in EDUCATION, a field of provincial responsibility, the FEUQ and the FECQ recommend that the task of drafting, applying, administering and financing Canadian EDUCATION standards be handled exclusively by provincial governments and that accordingly, these standards be governed by interprovincial agreements. We understand full well parties can opt out of an agreement and that an agreement is not at all the same as creating a federal government agency.
Summing up, we have dealt in our brief with issues directly tied to the federal issue. We did not focus on areas under provincial jurisdiction. As I explained at the outset, we are not comfortable discussing such matters in front of a federal institution. We touched on the patriation of tax points for EDUCATION as well as on Canadian EDUCATIONal standards. We do not object to such standards in principle, but, as I pointed out, we do object to the approach that is being taken.
At this time, the Fédération collégiale would like to speak briefly about the importance of CEGEPs in Quebec.
Mr. Deschênes: Since we did not have a great deal of time to prepare a brief, I would like to quickly review the special nature of CEGEPs and their importance to us.
CEGEPs are a unique feature of Post-Secondary education in Quebec in that they provide students with a beneficial environment for change, growth and integration.
If we were to compare them to the EDUCATION system in the rest of Canada, we would have to say that CEGEPs are somewhat like the final year of high school and the first year of university. They offer a wide range of technical programs geared to the job market. CEGEPs help students acquire two basic skills, namely independence and the ability to adapt to changes or to instigate them. To provoke these changes, CEGEPs offer students an opportunity to get involved in their community. We all know how beneficial it is to society to have individuals with a social conscience who are prepared to get involved and who have an awareness of the world around them.
Since 1967, CEGEPs have, in our opinion, been an asset to Quebec's EDUCATION system and they provide a marvellous opportunity for individual and community growth and development. For this reason, it is important to ensure that they remain accessible to everyone and that federal transfers for post-secondary EDUCATION be maintained.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you for coming here, apparently on rather short notice.
[English]
Senator Andreychuk: I wish to talk about research and development. Mr. Tétrault, you said that you felt too much research was going to the medical area and that the federal perspective is too much business-oriented and not on basic research. I have heard that across Canada, and I share that difficulty.
Another concern was raised, and I wonder if it is prevalent in Quebec as well. Historically, in Canada, research and development ends up in the hands of the larger institutions. With the cut-backs both from transfer payments and in research and development funds, smaller institutions are suffering even more than larger institutions.
I know of one trend showing that 80 per cent of research funds were going into the 10 largest institutions in Canada. Do you have any comment to make on any of that?
[Translation]
Mr. Tétrault: I must admit that we do not have any accurate figures on this. However, this is clearly a pan-Canadian reality.
Historically, research budgets have always been allocated to the larger universities. There is an explanation for this. Until recently, all we found in Quebec were large universities. The emergence of regional institutions is a more recent phenomenon. Therefore, research development may indeed have taken somewhat longer, but this trend has meant that the progress some regional universities were beginning to make has been impeded somewhat. This is also something Quebec has had to face as well.
[English]
Senator Andreychuk: Are you aware of any studies about the rposttion of the research budget causing us to lose young researchers? In other words, there used to be a line-up to get into research because you could teach a little and still continue in your discipline. You had options and opportunities. That pool of talent is either not being created or it is moving elsewhere. Is that also a trend in your province?
[Translation]
Mr. Tétrault: We at the FEUQ have already done some research into this subject. Unfortunately, I do not have the figures with me today. Cuts to research grants have meant that many students have less money to live on while they are doing their research, since research is a very important part of their studies. This has meant a higher dropout rate. Therefore, I would have to say that yes, cuts have prevented many people from pursuing their EDUCATION.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I appreciated your data on the OECD. Perhaps you could have given us some indication of how much Canada spends on EDUCATION versus other OECD countries. You would have found that we rank among the top five countries in the world when it comes to spending levels for EDUCATION.
Indeed, Canada spends more on EDUCATION than most G-7 countries which are not exactly among the poorest, such as Germany, the United States and France. Canada spends more per capita than all of these countries. You may be tempted to argue that we should be spending this money more wisely, but the Canadian public pay higher EDUCATION taxes than the residents of all G-7 countries. This is worth remembering, because if there are adjustments to be made, we must look at the overall picture.
[English]
Senator Andreychuk: You are saying on all EDUCATION? We are studying Post-Secondary education in this subcommittee.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: However, you understand that it is a provincial jurisdiction. We cannot intervene in how we split the envelope.
The Deputy Chair: Is it true for Post-Secondary education?
Senator Andreychuk: It seemed to me that we were not spending as much per capita on Post-Secondary education. The total envelope may be higher but we do not fare as well against our counterparts when we look at Post-Secondary education.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I do not know that.
Senator Andreychuk: That is what we have been seeing.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: In Germany, they spend less than us at every level. They have fewer university graduates than we do in Canada. It sounded strange to me to learn that Germany spends less, but they have more people in the technical schools. There is a sort of cooperative EDUCATION. They go into business and go to school, and the costs are split with the industry, rather than being covered just by taxpayers. The end result is a lower budget for EDUCATION in that country. As a federation, we can compare ourselves with it more than with some other countries.
[Translation]
I want to get back to the issue of European standards developed under the Erasmus program to give students an opportunity to work in all European Community countries. These standards were drafted by the European Parliament which has jurisdiction over this matter. They were not developed by any one country. When we talk about Canadian standards, we are not talking about federal standards. The provinces would necessarily have their say in the drafting of these standards.
You mentioned the process and the approach that should be taken. We appreciate your suggestions. We are in favour of drafting Canadian standards of excellence in EDUCATION through a process respectful of the provinces' jurisdiction over EDUCATION. Given that we favour the free movement of goods, services and people throughout Canada, is it the Canadian standards as such that you object to or the process followed to draw up these standards?
Mr. Germain: As we pointed out, we object more to the approach taken. Our greatest concern is that a new federal body is being created, one that would be under federal government control.
The Deputy Chair: If the provinces agree that a structure should be established and that they should all be represented, I do not see how this infringes on the provinces' jurisdiction over EDUCATION.
Mr. Germain: Provided the provinces agree. I would point out that Quebec is an active participant in the Council of Ministers of EDUCATION, Canada, and as even chaired the Council. We are not at all opposed to standards. It is important that standards be established, but the principle behind a provincial multiparty agreement is that if a party is not satisfied with the agreement, it can opt out. However, a formal federal body would make opting out impossible.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Mechanisms are already in place. Recently, we concluded negotiations on the issue of child tax credits, which also come under provincial jurisdiction. The provinces hammered out an agreement among themselves. The federal government was on hand to act as catalyst, not to impose its authority on anyone.
Similar types of negotiations had been undertaken in the case of agreements on federal-provincial barriers. These agreements are administered by an agency to which each party, including the federal government, contributes financially.
I know of one, little known agency that works very well. It is responsible for drafting all of the standards in the construction industry in Canada. The National Research Council presides over this agency. All sectorial agencies and provinces were involved in drafting these standards and the process culminated in the building code, the authority on standards in the construction industry.
Not only has this given us an opportunity to export these products, but it has also ensured compliance on our part with international standards.
When we talk about Canadian standards, we have to be clear on the meaning. We are not so very far apart in our thinking. We agree that it is possible to have an agency that brings together 11 governments around the same table. However, at some point, there needs to be someone to act as a catalyst, someone who is not necessarily a stakeholder. Often, the federal government takes on this role to ensure that a consensus is achieved and that a standard is established.
I would remind you that the country has been around for over 150 years and that standards are not yet in place. There is still no student mobility and no recognition of course equivalence. I discovered this morning that there was no such recognition even within the province of Quebec.
If we truly want to be competitive on a global scale, it is high time that students be able to move not only from one province to the next, but also that they have the opportunity to go abroad to complete their training, and in particular to get a feel for business.
You stated that Canadian standards should not be drafted by private agencies. The latter may participate in the process, but they should not necessarily be the ones making the decisions. Do you agree with that?
Mr. Germain: Of course we agree with that in principle. I would just like to point out two things. First of all, we were concerned about the eventual creation of a new federal structure and we were also concerned that private organizations would be entrusted with the responsibility of administering Canadian standards.
You mentioned the construction industry and I think that Quebec has to acknowledge that it has made a number of mistakes, for example, in terms of the Red Seal Standards of Excellence, and construction worker training. It is totally ridiculous that Quebec is not a party to this agreement.
However, getting back to our presentation, we are concerned about private agencies getting involved because we are dealing with public funds. Furthermore, it is critically important that the parties be bound by interprovincial agreements and that they be able to opt out of these agreements.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: In the last budget, over $800 million was made available to universities and colleges through the Canadian Foundation for Innovation. The funds were earmarked for health care, the environment, sciences, engineering and so forth. This approach ensures that the proper facilities will be in place and that obviously, we will not be putting all of our eggs in the same basket and running out of money. Are you in favour of this catch-up approach whereby researchers are given additional funding, even though they may not have the laboratories or the modern equipment they need to do their research?
Mr. Germain: Obviously, a number of choices were made in the budget. I would like to make two points. First of all, we see here an example of public funds being earmarked for a private foundation, and second, while we do not object to this investment which is important to Canada, this is another case where priority is being given to project-oriented research.
At the outset, I indicated that we favoured an EDUCATIONal approach based on humanism. We attach a great deal of importance to basic research because it is important to society's development in the long term.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I do not think that the foundation for innovation is a private entity. While it will be seeking financial contributions from the private sector, it will be chaired by someone appointed by the Canadian government and it will be administered by the Canadian government, not by private enterprise. The private sector will be asked to contribute financially and to work in partnership with the public sector. However, this is not a private agency.
Dr. John Evans does not answer to any private-sector firm in Canada. He will be accountable to the Canadian government. Madam Deputy Chair, I too have asked myself the question of why a foundation was being set up.
I was told that from the standpoint of administering public finances, this was the most effective mechanism for making these funds available to universities within a relatively short period of time. The universities had stressed the urgency of the situation to the Canadian government and this was deemed to be the most effective mechanism.
This was not a Machiavellian invention on someone's part. We were asked to respond as quickly as possible and this was the best formula we came up with to respond to this need expressed by the universities. This takes nothing away from the budgets of other research programs. It was specifically for catch-up purposes because the universities had submitted briefs to the Canadian government detailing how their laboratories were falling into disrepair and how they no longer had the modern equipment they needed.
[English]
Senator Forest: As Senator Lavoie-Roux said, we are very conscious of the jurisdictions of the federal and provincial governments. We wanted to hear from the students and professors from Quebec.
I have a long history in EDUCATION. I should like to say that it has been very difficult for me to accept the funding cuts in EDUCATION at both the provincial and federal levels. I understand the need for it, but for me it is the last place to cut because it is an investment in our future.
I am very much concerned about research and development. I am pleased to hear you speak of your preference for the arts and humanities because in this age, when we are putting so much emphasis on technology, we need to attend to the humanities and the arts. In that area, I would say that the province of Quebec has done better, perhaps, than any other province in the country.
One matter we did not discuss is internationlization. Senator Hervieux-Payette touched upon it briefly. Do you have any ideas as to how we can better prepare our graduates to compete on the global level in all aspects of their training?
[Translation]
Mr. Tétreault: The best way to prepare for the global market place is simply to provide EDUCATION on the cutting edge. There is no magic formula for doing this. We have to invest the money and the resources. It is as simple as that. I do not think we need to devise complex plans or special strategies. Admittedly, we should perhaps be targeting very specific sectors. Today, given the speed with which information is transmitted, we cannot avoid talking about new information and communication technologies and about how this should probably be part of everyone's training, and I mean students in the humanities as well as those studying more leading-edge technologies. However, in our opinion, we have to realize that a quality EDUCATION comes at a price. I realize that this is a rather simplistic statement, but that is reality.
[English]
Senator Forest: In other parts of the country we heard about Canada being behind the times in terms of marketing our EDUCATIONal system, the importance of bringing more students here and having more of our students study abroad. Do you feel that is important?
[Translation]
Mr. Tétrault: Having recently seen some reports, I know that a number of international exhibitions were held on the subject of university EDUCATION and that few Canadian and Quebec representatives were in attendance. This interaction is obviously very necessary. The student federation regrets the recent decisions which will result in fewer international students coming over here to study.
Nevertheless, foreign student exchanges will enable more Canadian and Quebec students to go abroad to study and the quality of these exchanges will improve as well. That is a fact. And yes, we have observed that we are lagging behind in this area.
The Deputy Chair: Is your highly positive opinion of CEGEPs shared by the student body as a whole?
The dropout rate in the CEGEPs is very high. I have heard many people speak of this. We did not ask for their opinion, because this is really not our responsibility, but I am merely reacting to your testimony.
There are those who argue that we should do away with CEGEPs and come up with another formula. This view is fairly widespread. You seem to be saying that CEGEPs are the best institutions in the world.
Mr. Deschênes: The college-level students who belong to our Federation are convinced of the worth of CEGEPs as an institution. As for the dropout rate, we cannot attribute this to the place CEGEPs occupy in the EDUCATION system. The dropout rate is more a function of the cuts that we are continuing to see.
The Deputy Chair: But this was a problem before the cuts.
Mr. Deschênes: Are you referring to the student dropout rate?
The Deputy Chair: Yes.
Mr. Deschênes: Dropping out is a phenomenon observed at all levels of the EDUCATION system. The dropout rate is fairly high at the secondary level. The government must try to increase public awareness of EDUCATION.
At the college level, teacher and guidance positions are being cut. The result is students who are rather lost and who simply decide to drop out of the system.
However, I do not believe that college students in Quebec are calling into question the CEGEP system in the province. Absolutely not.
The Deputy Chair: I have often heard students say: "I have completed my CEGEP, but I do not really know why I bothered. It was a way to get my foot in the university door."
I do not want to be critical of CEGEPs, but you seem to be painting such a rosy picture. You were sounding so optimistic. I simply wanted to share with you what I had heard. There is no question of our getting involved in this. Programming and training issues are truly a provincial responsibility.
I want to assure you once again that we have no desire to infringe upon the provinces' jurisdiction over EDUCATION. However, if we can help improve matters, because we have heard people across the country complaining, students in particular, if we can do something to improve the situation, then I hope this will not have been a waste of time.
Mr. Deschênes: Do you intend to put any pressure on the government to increase federal transfers for Post-Secondary education?
The Deputy Chair: We cannot say exactly what we are going to do. I am only one member of this committee.
I would imagine that we will be reporting on what we have heard from people about the impact of repeated cuts to EDUCATION, either by the provinces or by the federal government. Do you agree that spending overall should be rposted?
Mr. Deschênes: We are all for the government putting its financial house in order. However, EDUCATION should not be viewed in the same light as other spending initiatives. EDUCATION is an investment, a priority investment to help us meet the challenges we face as a society. I hope that your committee shares our view.
The Deputy Chair: In any case, we will remember the slogan that EDUCATION is an investment.
Mr. Deschênes: I hope so.
The Deputy Chair: We heard the same thing right across the country.
Mr. Deschênes: A priority investment.
The Deputy Chair: If you have any questions for us, please go ahead. We are not in the habit of taking questions, but since you are here, you may as well proceed.
Mr. Germain: I have a brief comment concerning Senator Hervieux-Payette's intervention. My comments about the foundation for innovation were not made off the top of my head. Our source was the budget. Perhaps I misinterpreted what was written in the budget, but I seem to recall that it mentioned the private nature of the foundation.
The Deputy Chair: Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Germain: I would also like to comment briefly about copyright. I know that the Senate is currently examining the copyright bill. We have not commented on this up until now because it was not a priority issue for us, given the budget cut-backs and so forth. We have observed, nevertheless, that this bill contains provisions concerning used books and photocopies. Given that 80 per cent of students live on a limited budget, the bill is certain to have an impact on them. I would like the senators to be aware of this when they discuss the copyright provisions.
The average student income in Quebec is $9,700 a year. This amount must also cover over $2,000 in tuition fees. According to Statistics Canada, the poverty line in Canada is $16,000, while the Conseil de la santé québécoise has set the poverty line at approximately $11,000. There is no question that students live below the poverty line. And remember, tuition fees are averaging over $2,000.
Therefore, it is important to point out that the copyright legislation will have an obvious impact on students. The textbooks alone for some university courses cost over $500 per term.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: We have heard representations from creators and authors. Since you are talking about poverty, I would just like to remind you that these individuals earn on average $10,000 per year. We cannot say that Canadian creators were being dealt with fairly in the past.
As a society, we have choices to make. I want to remind you that we are trying to strike a balance between users and creators. If our creators were better off, perhaps we would have a better balance.
Mr. Germain: I totally agree with you and perhaps we should reflect upon this situation.
The Deputy Chair: At this time we would like to welcome Mr. Bouchard who represents the Fédération nationale des enseignants et enseignantes du Québec.
Mr. Oliva Bouchard, President, Fédération nationale des enseignants et enseignantes du Québec: Honourable senators, it is truly a pleasure for me to be here today on behalf of the Fédération nationale des enseignants et enseignantes du Québec. The Fédération represents over 22,000 CEGEP teachers across the province of Quebec and nearly all university lecturers. As you know, over 60 per cent of university undergraduate courses are taught by lecturers. They are certainly eager to hear what I have to say, as I hope you are.
We also represent secondary and college level teachers working in the private sector. Much has been written about teachers in the private sector in Quebec. I am honoured to be here to speak to you briefly -- because I am told our time is limited -- about the state of Post-Secondary education in Quebec and also to share with you our concerns as compared to those of other provinces and the global view of higher EDUCATION in today's world.
I would like to divide my presentation in three parts. In part one, I will focus on EDUCATION at the CEGEP or college level and talk to you more specifically about the origins and the importance of this institution.
I see that copies of the presentation have been distributed to you. With me today is Jean-François Beaudet, a researcher with the Federation. We are, I note, in the company of an august gathering of senators. In part two, I will touch on university EDUCATION, research and new information and communication technologies. Finally, in part three, I will talk briefly about funding which obviously is the flash point, if I can use that expression. The thorny issue of Post-Secondary education funding is tied in with the whole issue of social and economic development and, of course, with conditions which allow students to pursue their EDUCATION at the post-secondary level.
In these brief introductory remarks, I wanted to set aside the dichotomy. As I stated in my introduction on pages 1 and 2 of my brief, the tendency in this debate is to focus on the dichotomy between utilitarianism and humanism. Is Post-Secondary education merely the process of helping students acquire the skills and training for a lifetime, a process that benefits society in general as well as the business world? Or, is Post-Secondary education the process of helping a student acquire a well-rounded basic culture?
What connection can we draw between these two, nonetheless fundamental aspects of an individual's training and social development?
We wanted to put our comments in context for you. As I mentioned earlier, I would like to begin by saying a word about the uniquely Quebec origins of CEGEPs and the vital role they play. At this time, I would also like to make a case for college-level EDUCATION and share with the committee our expectations about Post-Secondary education.
The analysis of experts in other countries around the world has confirmed the finding that CEGEPs are a very forward-looking type of institution and serve a very interesting and productive function for individuals, given the way they are structured.
I discuss this function on page 4 of my brief. Since we wanted to present a brief document, we observed the guidelines that we were given to us for drafting documents.
We could have prepared a much longer paper. However, I decided to recall the words of an expert who in 1992, noted that CEGEPs had given Quebec a 20-year head start.
Far be it for me to be pretentious. What I am trying to do is to delve me more into the origins of this institution and why it is an important component of Quebec society.
What makes this institution unique is the fact that it combines under the same roof two streams, a pre-university stream and a technical stream which share the same objective, namely that of providing students with a general EDUCATION. This institution allows individuals to acquire, prior to specialization, a solid background in a particular field. That is what makes it unique among institutions. This mix of general and technical EDUCATION helps students to mature and to choose a career path. I cannot stress strongly enough that as educators, and I am a career postator, we have a duty first and foremost to help individuals undergo the maturation process. As educators, we have a duty in some respects to accompany them on this journey.
To some extent, this ties in somewhat with the dichotomy that I mentioned earlier on, namely the idea of reconciling a utilitarian EDUCATION with a more basic one. One issue that concerns us a great deal, and I mention it on page 5, is the development of the college network. A debate is currently raging in Quebec. It centres on regionalisation. Of course, it also tied to the whole issue of the decentralization of responsibilities, particularly in the fields of posttion and health care. Until now, these areas were the responsibility of the public service. However, I will confine my comments to EDUCATION. Increasingly, for all kinds of reasons, particularly economic ones, we are seeing a form of regionalisation or decentralization take hold. This brings us to the issue of the very existence of a national network of CEGEPs. Developing, reviewing and evaluating programs are national activities, given that the network is national in scope and the CEGEP diploma is national in stature.
The reality of regionalisation brings into focus the problem of the fragmentation of the network. This is an on-going debate in which we as a federation and others are involved in Quebec. Surely you are aware of this debate.
We could discuss these matters at greater length. I would not forgive myself, however, if I did not mention technical EDUCATION, an issue of great concern today to all industrialized countries. This issue is also of great concern to Quebec. As far as technical EDUCATION is concerned, I want to come back to what I said earlier.
What connection should we draw between utilitarianism and humanism? Should EDUCATIONal institutions -- if this is true for the secondary level, then it is also true for the university level -- focus first and foremost on postating individuals to meet the needs of the business world?
We have also observed that business people and business leaders are increasingly represented on round tables, committees and agencies in charge of program development. This brings to mind the kind of relationship that should exist between EDUCATIONal institutions and businesses. I want my comments to be clearly understood. I am not saying that EDUCATIONal institutions should be cut off from business. Quite the contrary. I am saying that institutions, particularly college-level ones, must devise new partnership arrangements with business to ensure that they fulfil their primary mission in society, namely turning out skilled workers. However, to our minds, training a skilled workforce does not mean training people in one particular field, that is in the technical field, but rather training people to have a broad range of portable skills.
In today's market, skills requirements change quickly, particularly in fields on the cutting edge of technology. If our post-secondary institutions concern themselves only with training individuals with the skills for these particular fields, I think that as a society, we will soon encounter some problems.
Therefore, what I want to stress today is the need for a rapprochement between utilitarian EDUCATION and the more humanistic basic EDUCATION. I would have to say that this is the key debate taking place in Quebec today in the field of college level EDUCATION.
I would now like to focus on the EDUCATION mission. I deal with this issue beginning on page 7 of my brief. I apologize for not sending it to your earlier, but you will have an opportunity to review it later.
The debate over the EDUCATION mission of universities and the reorganization of work is even more in the forefront today. For a period of over 15 months, estates general were held in Quebec and during the course of this vast undertaking, the issue was thoroughly examined. Commissioners released a substantive report and one of the questions that emerged was that the mission and role of university EDUCATION in society.
Obviously, a combination of factors led to this in-depth review of the mission of universities. This re-examination was prompted by government budgetary concerns, by the de-funding, if I can use this expression, or under-funding of Post-Secondary education, and by the many calls for universities to be accountable. At issue here is the sacrosanct autonomy of universities. I argue regularly with my university colleagues over these matters. Since we represent university lecturers in particular, it should come as no surprise to you that we are most concerned about such things as workloads, accountability, and the EDUCATIONal versus the research mission of these institutions.
Although I was not on hand earlier to hear the presentation by my colleagues from the Fédération étudiante universitaire du Québec, no doubt they related the pressures they felt and the concerns they had as students about the courses and EDUCATION dispensed by universities. Clearly, one thing they want is a quality EDUCATION and quality training.
In short, many societal pressures have gradually and sharply called into question the virtually absolute autonomy and independence of universities.
I am not really referring here to the University of Quebec network which is a legacy of the Parent report released during the 1960s in Quebec. This network has been a success story throughout the province.
The focus of this important debate is our concerns about the mission or very purpose of EDUCATION. Basically, what role do universities play? There is one inescapable fact and that is that 85 per cent of students today -- my brief does contain some figures -- are undergraduates and 60 per cent of all courses are taught by lecturers.
What role should universities play, for example, in the field of research? I mention this in passing. It is no secret that in Canada and in Quebec, as in most industrialized countries, in the past two decades, but in the last decade in particular, the number of private research centres has increased considerably. Obviously, these centres have relied tremendously on the services of teachers and university professors -- in short, on the university community in general.
What role should research play in today's universities? Should it serve as a tool for postating undergraduate students in particular? Should it help universities achieve their teaching and training objectives? Should applied research be left to private research centres, that is those that are not subsidized, thereby justifying a withdrawal by governments, whether provincial or federal, from university research funding?
The issue is far from settled. This is also an extremely important debate for us and we are optimistic that we will find solutions.
Training and teaching functions must also be reorganized. I talk about this on page 8. To call into question a university's mission is to question the way a university is structured and the relationship between administrations forced to deal with recurring budget cuts imposed by at least two levels of government. Their situation is understandable. However, the reality is that students, as consumers, must contend with increasingly heavy financial obligations because the cost of living is also a factor. At the same time, students are aware that they need to receive an EDUCATION of the highest calibre in order to have any chance of landing the most interesting and perhaps the highest paying jobs in society.
This re-examination of the EDUCATIONal mission of universities is part of a larger trend in society. The issue of the re-organization of work is moving to the forefront in other areas. As Senator Hervieux-Payette pointed out earlier, the preoccupation with work is really a concern about how work is organized and this is true in all segments of society and all sectors of the workforce today.
This is also an inescapable reality for the university community. The key word here is integration. This is a broad concept to be sure, but for the federation that I represent, integration means that we must work to develop a university EDUCATION program that incorporates all university components. These components include the support staff, the professors whose numbers are declining considering the way universities are evolving, and the indispensable lecturers. We have studied the situation in other countries and we have observed that the phenomenon is even more widespread there. I have just returned from a convention in Mexico. We observed that well over 60 per cent of the teaching staff consisted of either lecturers, professors in temporary positions or individuals employed in private universities.
Is this the direction we want to take? We think not because in our view, higher EDUCATION must truly remain under our control, or at the very least, allow for program integration through the Department of EDUCATION. Otherwise, an essentially private Post-Secondary education system will emerge. A two-track EDUCATION system could quickly develop, one track for the wealthy, and one for the less fortunate. One of our proudest achievements in Quebec, and this is a legacy of the Parent report, is the democratization and accessibility of EDUCATION up to the university level.
As the century draws to a close, we must not move in the opposite direction. This is the main point we want to get across to you. In closing, I would like to say a few words about Post-Secondary education funding in Canada. There is no question that Post-Secondary education, whether at the college or university level, has not been immune to the public funding crisis affecting all areas of Canadian and Quebec society.
The impact of these cuts is being felt. As you know, many new words are being added to our vocabulary. We no longer talk about cuts, but about constraints and downsizing. I could also talk about collective agreements, but I will save this for another time.
Society has been deeply affected by this crisis in government funding which has in turn has stood in the way of our achieving our objectives. Under-funding is not a recent phenomenon. The problem really emerged during the 1980s and intensified during the 1990s. The cuts in federal transfer payments to the provinces are symptomatic of the problem. Major changes occurred and this affected the level of funding of EDUCATIONal institutions. Universities are structured in such a way that it is impossible to even think of providing the same quality of courses and programming with ever-shrinking resources.
There are not a whole lot of solutions available. You must find the monies somewhere to maintain these programs, otherwise the quality suffers. Instead of classes of 80 or 120 students, you end up with classes of 300 students. That is how universities are dealing with budgetary constraints. Another solution is to cut programs, one option that unfortunately we are seeing, when the very goal of developing a province-wide university network is to give people across this vast province the opportunity to avail themselves of these programs. However, circumstances have led us to this contradiction: certain programs have to go because of under-funding problems.
Another option is for us to admit that tuition fees will have to be substantially increased. And as things now stand, I do not believe the push is on to increase tuition fees, much to the dismay, moreover, of university administrations which would obviously like to see tuition fee increases decompartmentalized.
These obstacles and factors have combined to create this funding problem. I would even venture to say that we are caught in a vicious circle. Under-funding jeopardizes the ability of institutions to offer programs of equal calibre. Add to this the problem of accessibility to Post-Secondary education and the entire structure of the system is called into question.
This is a very good example of being caught in a vicious circle. Faced with a funding crisis, governments, in their accounting wisdom, made decisions which resulted in the under-funding of institutions. As I have noted, this has had an impact on society. Sooner or later, this funding problem will have to be addressed by the decision-makers who, admittedly, have some difficult political choices to make given today's concern for balancing budgets.
Of course, we may be tempted by certain lures. I refer to this on the final page of my brief, before the bibliography, on page 11: "The lure of new information and communication technologies."
We are often outraged by certain comments or when we read articles that maintain that with the advent of new information and communication technologies, it will be possible to have virtual EDUCATION or virtual classrooms where a student in Calgary can take a course offered in California or at McGill University. However, aside from the untold possibilities this offers in terms of knowledge dissemination, we must never lose sight of the fact that extensive EDUCATIONal psychology studies in the U.S. have shown that quite apart from a certain teacher-student rapport, virtual EDUCATION lacks one element I referred too earlier, namely teacher-assisted EDUCATION which, in our view, is an indispensable part of the process of acquiring a quality EDUCATION and attaining goals, both personal and societal.
I will conclude my presentation on this note. I realize that I have expressed some very broad ideas, but my main concern has been to attempt to reconcile the utilitarian aspect of EDUCATION, that is the funding crisis, with what I feel is the essential issue, namely providing individuals with a basic EDUCATION.
The Deputy Chair: We have heard several presentations on university EDUCATION, but this one had some particularly interesting elements. We will proceed immediately to questions.
[English]
Senator Andreychuk: Thank you for your brief. You have covered many of the areas that are of interest to this committee from your perspective in Quebec.
You have used utilitarian words, more than I have heard in the past. I have heard discussions between traditional, or "basic" research, in a post-secondary environment and "applied" research, in the business sectors. Perhaps that is the unique debate you are having, which is slightly different from that which the academics across Canada are having. However, by and large, it is the same debate.
Do you think we are having this debate in Canada because, as a country, more of our research is based on the university sector, traditionally, as well as in colleges, more so than in other like-minded countries, or is there some other reason why this debate is coming forward at this time?
I do not have the statistics on hand, but we found out that research embedded into our universities and colleges was significantly higher than others. If you put that together with the councils that were created to foster research, it was more in the hands of EDUCATIONal institutions than in other societies.
As the governments move back from funding these, we find ourselves in a more precarious position. That is what we have heard across Canada in some sectors. Is that the route of your debate, or does it come from something else?
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-François Beaudet, Researcher, Fédération nationale des enseignants et enseignantes du Québec: Let me begin by clarifying that these are our concerns about research. Our organization represents lecturers mainly and the fundamental difference, in terms of rules or collective agreements, is the research component. What sets a lecturer apart from a full professor is the research side of his job. An organization representing full professors would take an approach quite different to ours. Allow me to explain why I mean.
Therefore, this justifies somewhat our taking a different approach to research and our being more receptive perhaps to new mechanisms. In answer to your question about the difference between basic research and applied research, there are people in Quebec, in particular Camille Limoges who is now the Chairman of the Science and Technology Council, who have begun to draw a more subtle distinction, more subtle even than basic versus applied. Mr. Limoges talks about contextual research. He argues that there is not so great a distinction between basic and applied research in most cases. Often, it is a matter of context. Basic concepts are applied to find solutions to concrete problems. Most types of research would fall somewhere in between basic and applied research.
What he suggests is rather interesting. Perhaps this is one option that we could consider. Perhaps universities should confine their research efforts to matters directly linked to EDUCATION. All other research associated with economic or industrial development should be done outside the university setting. EDUCATION is a very broad area. There are undergraduate studies, research studies, doctoral studies, studies to train researchers for the private sector. All of this EDUCATION-related research is important and could be conducted in a university environment. However, all other types of research could be done outside universities. Another problem is the volume of research done in universities versus the amount done by industry as such. Compared to other societies, Canadian businesses have relatively limited funds available for R&D.
In some societies, businesses have no choice but to do research. They have to invest part of their profits in research. This is true, for example, of countries like Japan whereas here in Canada, this is not quite the case. All of these various factors come into play.
Another important consideration is the volume of research conducted within as oppose to outside the university setting. I would have to say that universities have developed a research culture. I am more familiar with what is going on in Quebec, but I have a feeling that the situation is somewhat similar outside Canada. As a society, we started to value research and from that moment on, funds were allocated to university research and this undertaking took on even more importance than teaching and postating students. Full professors tend to devote far more of their energy to research than to teaching. This has led to a situation where lecturers have taken on more on more responsibility for teaching and training in universities. This explains our interest in this subject.
We have witnessed the emergence of a cultural phenomenon whereby research is assigned a high value, perhaps even too high a value, and where teachers and regular professors are promoted based on the research they have done, not on their performance as teachers and educators. This validation process has had a somewhat perverse effect in universities, and a number of people are now calling into questions the importance that has been assigned to research versus postating and teaching. We are not saying that research should be eliminated completely, but the time has come to question its role within the university environment. What approach should universities be adopting? The whole issue of public funding forces us to take a clearer look at this.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I have one further question regarding specialization versus a more general study program. I am talking about Quebec in particular. Preference has been given to certain fields such as biochemistry, biotechnology, aeronautics, telecommunications and environmental sciences, perhaps because we had the researchers, faculties and resources and also perhaps because the environment naturally led us to these fields.
As a general policy, have you formed an opinion on these issues? How do you go about assigning priority to a particular field? Should all of them be placed on an equal footing? Some successful fields are a reflection of our entire economy. We have considerable know-how of environmental issues, perhaps because we have a solid engineering faculty and so forth.
My question is this: How do you go about assigning priority? Setting aside the humanities, there are some specialized fields, but that is not what I am referring to. A good basic EDUCATION, namely a good old-fashioned bachelor's degree, suited me fine. Now that we are dealing with more technologically advanced fields of study at the university level, are you concerned by the fact that preference seems to be given to certain areas?
Mr. Bouchard: I will try to answer that question and perhaps Jean-François, who devotes more of his efforts to research in his particular field, will want to add something to that.
Generally speaking, in answer to your question, universities, both in the regions and in the large urban centres, are involved in a rationalization exercise in terms of identifying successful fields.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Chicoutimi does have some successful fields of study.
Mr. Bouchard: Yes, there are a number of successful fields of study in this region. I agree completely with you. However, we are not saying that we need to balance everything out. If we were to adopt an approach based on the belief that university studies must develop at the expense of more successful areas, I am deeply convinced that we would be doing ourselves a great disservice. As I have stated several times, this is one issue that is being widely discussed in Quebec.
The issue being debated is whether a balanced approach should be taken province-wide to university EDUCATION. Universities need to adopt a clear policy. Time and time again during the estates general, and after the fact with Ms Marois's action plans, we argued that efforts must be made to bring university administrations together and to get them to agree on the need to conduct such an exercise. For too long, EDUCATION in Quebec has been viewed as the exclusive domain of some. I am certain that this concern is in the back of your mind.
This is without doubt a crucial debate. We will continue to put options on the table. A movement which cannot be reversed is underway to develop our leading fields to the best of our ability, to perform to the best of our ability and to give every opportunity to people across the province to have access to higher EDUCATION.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Did you make any recommendations during the course of the estates general? We are often told in Quebec that in terms of the number of doctoral and master students, we could have a higher percentage of researchers.
To what do you attribute the fact that probably fewer university students than we would like go on to do doctoral studies?
Mr. Bouchard: There are certainly many reasons for this. First, there is the whole issue of accessibility. Do these individuals have access to post-graduate studies? If they do not, then we must try and find out why. Perhaps there are no job opportunities. Perhaps the reason for not going on to the doctoral level is purely a financial one. That is one possible explanation.
The Deputy Chair: Doctors are leaving for the United States because there are no job opportunities for them here.
Mr. Bouchard: That is the other extreme given that we invest so much in our society. We invest all of this money into training a specialist and then for all kinds of reasons and because of a lack of job opportunities, that person is lured into going abroad.
This phenomenon is known as the brain drain and I mention it often. It is indeed quite sad when this happens to a society. We must do everything we can to hold on to our graduates and to offer them interesting employment opportunities. However, it is not simply a matter of the institutions or businesses themselves deciding, or the lack of higher degrees, which affect the brain drain. It is also a question of the choices that we as a society must make.
Decisions need to be made, particularly in terms of rationalization. Recently, we saw in Quebec how the reconfiguration of the health care system had a rather devastating impact on young specialists.
I maintain that short-sighted decisions to decentralize or reorganize EDUCATION or health care can have and do have harmful effects. However, we are deeply concerned about the whole issue of masters or doctoral studies in Quebec.
Mr. Beaudet: I would just like to add something to that. Our brief focussed more on undergraduate studies because the majority of lecturers teach courses at this level. We maintain that the value of undergraduate studies should be enhanced and emphasized.
I think that the discussion we are having illustrates the importance that is assigned to research in universities and to post-graduate studies. We seem to be focussing more on these areas. This is the problem because 85 per cent of university students do not go on to do post-graduate work. While it is important to stress the value of these studies, it is equally important for society to train good teachers. We are not saying that it is a bad thing to assign importance to masters and doctoral studies and to research, but an essential function of universities is to postate lawyers, doctors and engineers. Is this function truly taken into consideration and do we devote as much energy and as many resources to this as we should? More of our energies appear to be focussed elsewhere.
Let me illustrate for you the kinds of problems that this can create for a particular department. I work in the field of EDUCATION. In some fields, for example religious studies, the research interests of the professors dictate the study program rather than the needs of teachers. Programs are not set up on the basis of student interests. They are developed on the basis of interests dictated by the structure of the university. This creates problems. The student's EDUCATION and his professional skills are not the institution's primary concern. The focus is the professor's research interests. The problem lies with that person's professional training. We have to pause and consider what exactly we want from universities and where we want to focus our energies. There is no question that we need research and graduate and post-doctoral studies. Nevertheless, undergraduate students must succeed as well and we are experiencing problems at this level. We need to put the emphasis back on EDUCATION and skills development.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I am not discounting that fact. I asked the question because we were talking about specialization. I wonder if this whole exercise in rationalization is not merely an excuse, as Mr. Bouchard said, given university operating costs, the administration and all of the support costs versus the teaching staff. You are probably in a better position than we are to answer the question because you are a lecturer. Universities do not have the budgets to pay a professor's salary, and I believe there are no other reasons.
If you had to reorganize the resource envelope tomorrow morning, what would you do? I am thinking about all of the business people who have had to face some financial hardships because of the recession. They have had to take a hard look at their budgets and they did not cut on the marketing side, but rather on the operations side, that is they cut administration costs. They did not stop manufacturing products.
I wonder if universities in general, but institutions in Quebec in particular, have achieved a balance between the cost of operating a university versus the cost of the teaching staff. I recall when I headed up a school board that I had 1,000 non-teaching or support staff members versus the teachers. At one point, we realized that the ratio of non-teaching staff to teachers no longer made any sense. I wonder if this was not part of the problem.
Mr. Bouchard: This is definitely part of the problem. I would even venture to say that this is an important part of the problem. You talk about striking an overall balance in terms of the overall payroll expenditures of an institution -- this would also be true for a CEGEP, but we are talking about universities -- for teachers and support staff versus all other expenditures. Increasingly, this balance is no longer there. You put your finger on the problem earlier. Lecturers like my colleague have now become career lecturers. These individuals, and I have great respect for them, will probably spend most of, if not all of, their career working as lecturers, with few opportunities to integrate the university community. They can easily be taken advantage of, given their lack of integration. Furthermore, it is very tempting for administrations forced to manage ever-shrinking budgets to cut even further by hiring more lecturers and by fragmenting their duties. I know of few, if any, Canadian provinces that do not look to deal with budget cuts or funding crises by focussing on labour costs.
Focussing on labour costs to rposte overall payroll costs is first and foremost an attack on the working conditions of teachers and other categories of employees.
I harbour no illusions whatsoever, in light of the crisis from which we have just emerged in Quebec. No doubt you have heard that CEGEP teachers have just settled their dispute with the government, a dispute over the very issues that we are discussing. A crisis erupted over Bill 104. I will have to stop soon because I could get political here, although I think this would be permissible since this is a political forum. University lecturers have been dealt a dual blow in this case in that university administrations, which have the power to negotiate, also have the power to cut their wages by a further 6 per cent.
The same thing is happening in the case of the private institutions that I represent. This trend is quite pronounced. And in answer to your earlier question, I harbour no illusions.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I have a brief comment. Senator Lavoie-Roux and I have worked in Quebec and we have come across such a thing as permanent casual workers, if I can use this new expression. We do not often see this at the federal level. The practice of employing permanent casual workers appears to be a cultural phenomenon. Technically, this category of worker is supposed to bring added flexibility to an organization.
The Deputy Chair: There are employees like this at the federal level as well.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Yes, but far fewer in percentage terms. I do not think anyone is going to demand that an organization of several thousand individuals not have a certain number of term employees. We are not questioning the practice of having these kinds of employees on staff, but rather the percentages. While they do provide some flexibility, 60 per cent of the staff should not be casual. I agree with you that this makes no sense. Now then, I want to touch on a subject which might upset you.
I have a question about the business side of universities. The United States, Australia and European countries view university EDUCATION as a profitable undertaking. They recruit students from countries that can afford to pay, such as students from the Middle East.
The Deputy Chair: From Indonesia.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: From Indonesia and from certain Latin American countries. It would be interesting to open the doors wide to our universities, to seek out additional students, to truly create new positions, to raise additional funds and to address our cost structure. I think that we are still too generous in terms of our cost structure. We have to compete with Australia, the United States and England, but I think we still have room to increase our tuition fees. How does your federation react to the following statement: Canada should not miss the opportunity to grab its share of billions of dollars that will be spent in the years to come to postate foreign students?
Mr. Bouchard: You bring up a very difficult question. I believe we would be making an historical mistake if we did not claim our share of the foreign student market, given the economic benefits this would entail for us. However, at the same time, we need to hold on to some very noble principles, one of which is that higher EDUCATION must be affordable. We are opposed, and we will continue to be opposed, to an increase in tuition fees.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I am talking about international students.
Mr. Bouchard: As far as foreign students are concerned, the debate is just getting underway. Recently, Quebec universities have been considering this issue. We have not thoroughly explored the subject, but I think that -- and this is my personal opinion -- to the extent that these students come here, take university courses and receive a diploma, only to return home afterward, there are no real spin-offs, either short-term or long-term, for Quebec society. Therefore, I believe that a variable tuition fee structure should be brought in.
The debate will have to be a societal one. However, I would not want the issue to be decided solely by the Minister of EDUCATION. She recently announced an end to the freeze on tuition fees for international students. This matter was not debated and we as a society must discuss this issue and make the most enlightened decision we can so that Quebec society can continue to be a tolerant place that welcomes immigrants.
This is an important issue that we will have to discuss.
The Deputy Chair: This is the first time that Senator Hervieux-Payette has been here, but this is certainly an issue that this committee will have to consider because everywhere we went, be it Vancouver, Victoria or Halifax, people referred to the marketing of EDUCATION and I hate the expression. I do not think that we should be making money at the expense of those that can least afford it, and I am not talking about multimillionaires from Indonesia. There are far worse inequities in Indonesian society than in ours and I do not think that we should contribute, either directly or indirectly, to further isolating people from these countries.
It is all well and good to think that this will help us financially, but since we are a wealthy country, I do not think we need this to sustain our EDUCATION system. It is an issue that will have to be discussed. There are consequences for us and for those countries that send foreign students here.
Mr. Bouchard: You are correct.
The Deputy Chair: We need to proceed with caution.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I simply want to clarify that there are two categories of students. I am talking about those students that can afford to pay. As we speak, there are at least 30,000 international students in Canadian universities who receive Canadian government funding through CIDA. I am not talking about these students. I am talking about paying students who may even come from the United States. The United States even come to Canada to recruit students. Some 20,000 Canadians study abroad each year. I would hope that an equal number of American and European students come here to study. One way of facing the challenges of a global marketplace is to promote these kinds of exchanges. The ties that future professionals will bring back to their countries are first forged at universities.
I beg to differ with your comment that their presence is of no economic benefit to us. On the contrary, the best way to generate long-term economic benefits is to have someone come here to be postated, to develop a network in Canada and in Quebec, and then return home knowing how our society works and how to do business with our country. These people can become our best allies from a business standpoint.
Mr. Bouchard: You will agree with me, however, that we cannot improvise these kinds of relationships. We need to develop structures and ties with those countries interested in taking part in these types of exchanges. We have already initiated discussions with several countries including Mexico and Cuba, as well as with a certain number of European and African nations. Highly representative union and labour organizations are involved in these discussions. We have to be concerned about this issue, but I also believe that we must get governments to commit to these types of exchanges and demonstrate the political will to allow them. I do believe that it is possible to have these types of highly productive exchanges at this level. I agree with you on this point.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: While there may be 35,000 international students studying here in Canada, there are not 10,000 Canadians studying abroad, whether in the United States, Europe or Asia. These numbers are not really high enough if we truly want to know what is happening in the world and not isolate ourselves. I think both sides need to give this matter further consideration. The federal government needs to adopt special immigration laws, take many measures and provide our embassies with the services to do this type of thing. This also means that you must get involved in drawing up international standards to facilitate these types of exchanges.
Mr. Bouchard: We will willingly participate in that endeavour.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: The message that we have derived from your presentation is that the university world is being restructured at the present time. It had no choice but to restructure since funds were no longer available. In light of the problems that have been brought to our attention, we will certainly be recommending that perhaps some thought be given to freeing up some funds. Would you not agree? Universities today are grappling with some very serious issues. We always talk about other countries or other provinces, but even inside Quebec, rivalries have emerged and this is true even at the CEGEP level, although our focus is more on universities. Are there any lecturers working in CEGEPs?
Mr. Bouchard: Yes, there are a fair number of them. For the province of Quebec overall, four out of ten CEGEP teachers are now term employees. This trend, which is quite prevalent in universities, is also present in the CEGEP system.
The Deputy Chair: I did not think that the CEGEPs were involved yet.
Mr. Bouchard: It is rather incredible. We are talking about teachers who, from one term to the next, do not know if they will still have a job. Furthermore, I have noted that teachers increasingly take on a full workload, whether it be at one or three CEGEPs or one university. Their workload is increasingly fragmented and this trend is on the rise. It all boils down to rposting labour costs.
The Deputy Chair: I have one final brief question about a point that I did not understand clearly. You stated at one point that universities must get out of the research business. I have the impression that...
Senator Hervieux-Payette: The reference was to applied research.
Mr. Bouchard: Yes, applied research.
The Deputy Chair: Then students would no longer be exposed to applied research. Did I understand you correctly? No? Then I did well to have you clarify this point. I was somewhat surprised to hear you say that.
Mr. Beaudet: I stated that universities should not stop doing research, but that their role should perhaps be clarified. Research is a component of the university's mission to postate students, whether undergraduate, postgraduate or doctoral students, and to train researchers for the business world.
This would be the type of research that universities would be involved in. The other kind of research which is not linked to EDUCATION could be done outside the university environment. This view, which is not mine, is held by Camille Limoges who is currently the Chairman of the Quebec Science and Technology Council. He does have a certain amount of influence over what happens in this area. He has developed an interesting approach which would involve re-emphasizing the EDUCATIONal mission of universities.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I have one final general question. How is it that full professors are able to focus their attention on research, and on profitable research at that, and that ultimately, they do not do things that could prove useful to your students?
Who decides what kind of research professors will undertake and authorizes this research? How are these decisions arrived at? Practically speaking, professors report to someone and it seems that this person should at some point remind professors that their primary responsibility is to teach. Are your CEGEPs and universities devoid of management?
Mr. Bouchard: I will let Mr. Beaudet answer that question.
Mr. Beaudet: That is where the magic of a university's autonomy comes into play. Departments exercise a certain amount of autonomy, and this trickles down to the professor himself who really decides what he is going to do. Basically, he is given a regular class load assignment, but he can find all kinds of ways of being excused of having to teach in order to do research. The professor himself is the one who decides. I am in a good position to talk about this, as I am not a professor and we are talking about teaching staff who are very different than us. We belong to various unions. Obviously, our approach is more critical. Professors are free to ask to be relieved as much as possible of their teaching duties in order to do research, but the way things work today, being published is what really counts when it comes to being promoted. It is not the number of courses taught or the quality of the teaching that matters. In any case, professors are very reluctant to have teaching evaluation measures introduced. The culture in our society is one that emphasizes the value of university research. However, as you can see, this has had some adverse effects.
The teaching and training functions are no longer even taken into account in appraising and promoting full professors. I do not know if this is true everywhere in Canada, but this is clearly the case in all Quebec universities.
The Deputy Chair: We could go on for some time, but we will have to end on that note.
The meeting is adjourned.