Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 7 - Evidence - October 7, 2009
OTTAWA, Wednesday, October 7, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, met this day at 4:04 p.m. to study the accessibility of post-secondary education in Canada.
Senator Art Eggleton (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
Today we begin a new study, for which we have blocked in 20-21 sessions over the next few months. It is a study on the accessibility of post-secondary education in Canada. We have a number of witnesses who will be speaking to us today to get us started. Before I go to them, I want to mention a couple of things to committee members.
First, Senator Ogilvie of Nova Scotia is back this week. Last week he was a substitute, and he liked it so much, he decided to make it permanent. Welcome to the committee, Senator Ogilvie.
I would also like to give Senator Callbeck of Prince Edward Island just a few moments to give us some thoughts about this study as we head into it. It was her motion which set the terms of reference for the study that is being conducted by our committee beginning today. Senator Callbeck, do you want to make a few opening remarks?
Senator Callbeck: Thank you. Certainly, I think it is important that this committee complete this study because we need as many Canadians as possible getting a post-secondary education. I am not just talking about university but about colleges and trade schools as well. We are told that within the next few years, two thirds of new jobs will require this level of education. Therefore, I feel it is important for individuals and it is important for Canada that more people get post-secondary education to increase our productivity and our progress as a nation.
By listening to witnesses, as we will be doing today, and studying the topic, we will in the end have some views as to how more people obtain post-secondary education, about the various programs offered to students by the government, about transfer payments and about research, which is so key to the success of any country.
I think that when we get through this, 20 some sessions, we will be able to make recommendations to the government that will make a real difference in the future of this country. I am looking forward to hearing from witnesses, and I am certainly happy that the committee is undertaking this.
The Chair: Thank you for your leadership on this question, Senator Callbeck. Let us get on with the witnesses.
Our first panel has four members. First, on behalf of the Canadian Council on Learning we have Dr. Paul Cappon, President and Chief Executive Officer. He is a prominent educator, doctor and administrator. He has been a life-long education advocate, community supporter and author of numerous publications on learning and community medicine.
From the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, we have two representatives today. Mr. Paul Davidson is President and Chief Executive Officer. He has played a leadership role in government, the private sector and the volunteer sector. Before joining the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, he was executive director of the World University Service of Canada.
Mr. Herbert O'Heron is Senior Advisor of the Office of the Vice-President (National Affairs) for the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. He has frequently contributed to the analysis of higher education and research issues in Canada and internationally. Mr. Davidson will make a presentation, but he will also be responding to any questions.
Before us today from Statistics Canada is Patrice de Broucker, Chief, Education Indicators and Special Projects. He forwarded a book to us — I saw Senator Pépin with it — which we all have in our offices as part of our reading and studying material.
We will start with Dr. Cappon.
[Translation]
Dr. Paul Cappon, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Council on Learning: Mr. Chair, I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee today. I will speak to certain aspects of post-secondary education more generally, rather than to the issue of accessibility, but I will answer any questions you have about that.
[English]
Some time ago I received a telephone call from the president of one of Canada's largest universities. The president wished to congratulate us for the contributions made by CCL's annual reports on post-secondary education. He also wanted to raise an issue he regarded as critical to the future capacity and competitiveness of Canadian university systems. He believed there should be a concentration of resources for research in those institutions which were already advanced in fields of inquiry. He wondered why CCL had remained silent on such a salient issue and encouraged us to take it up in the future.
This year, as you probably know, some of Canada's largest universities articulated a position along the lines that the president of this university indicated to me. You also know the debate on the subject has become somewhat tense. As I explained to him, while I may have a personal view as a former academic myself on this and many other issues relating to post-secondary education, the debate is completely sterile, like many other debates within the domain of tertiary education. This is for the simple reason that there exists no context in which to hold it or discussions on similar subjects. These disputations are stillborn because Canada has articulated no real goals for post-secondary education.
How can we possibly deliberate intelligibly on the particular and relative importance of research of different types, let alone the potential role of large or smaller universities, or of community colleges for that matter? Until there are such objectives publicly defined and expressed, these arguments will appear more squabble than useful contributions to public policy.
Because Canada has no genuine public policy on PSE, beyond a general support for research, for financing and access to institutions, and a desire that they be of high quality, it will be impossible for our governments to respond to contentious and important controversies like that over research.
Where CCL and the president and many other tertiary education leaders agree is on the troubled situation of Canadian PSE that prompted the outcry of the large universities. They are quite right if they claim that we are falling behind and they are quite right to demand an informed public discourse and policy response.
The situation, simply put, is that there exists no national post-secondary system or strategy in Canada.
A national post-secondary strategy should possess three essential characteristics: First, clearly and publicly stated objectives, both general and for specific periods of time. Second, measures to assess achievement of objectives. Third, a systematic goal of cohesion and coherence among all the facets, as is the case in other developed countries and as is the case even in trans-national political entities like the European Union.
The future of PSE in Canada, as the CCL has shown in great detail in its three annual reports to date, all of which are available to you, is uncertain because it has none of these three essential elements. Consequently, it appears unlikely that learners will optimize individual and community benefits from their educational experience and unlikely that Canada will possess the qualified workforce needed to realize its economic promise fully. Without the development of a made-in-Canada quality assurance processes, Canadian content, language, culture and ultimately Canadian identity cannot be assured.
How is it possible, you ask, in such a gloomy assessment that PSE in Canada has done so well — because it has. There are three major reasons. First, Canadians possess a very strong education ethic, educational success, and access to it, are valued by every language and ethnic group in every region of the country. Second, governments, recognizing that popular will, have often maintained their financial commitments to education, especially PSE, even during recessionary periods. Third, Canada has always and continues to have remarkable educators who manage to make progress despite, rather than because of, the absence of a national system or strategy.
What then does Canada need to do? We must achieve the three characteristics that I mentioned are essential for any viable PSE strategy at a national level. We need, in PSE, to resemble more the European Union. We need to understand there exists nothing in Canada's constitutional arrangement that prevents us from developing and executing such a trans-Canadian strategy. In this, we can look to Australia as an example whose constitutional division of powers were similar to that in this country but which, nonetheless, has a genuine and viable national system for PSE.
As for Europe, in achieving what Canada has failed to achieve, Europe has not abolished national education ministries. It has not established a pan-European ministry of education. It has simply displayed the political will to succeed in promoting Europe as the world's leading space for tertiary education for the benefit of all European learners, communities and industries.
In conclusion, on the generic issue of PSE in Canada, we feel it is probably time for us to stop hiding behind the excuse of jurisdictional barriers preventing the development of a coherent national strategy that will allow us to keep pace with the developed world. We can do that in whatever constitutional arrangement the country would have.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We may have some questions about how to do that, but we will get to that later. Next I will call upon Paul Davidson on behalf of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC).
Paul Davidson, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada: Thank you. It is a pleasure to be here today. I want to congratulate this committee for taking this subject on. I understand we are the first participants in a 20-session study you are going to do. For me, it underscores the important work the Senate can do when it chooses to think about the big issues this country is facing and look at the long-term horizon.
I also want to commend this committee's earlier work on the subject because it did inform the environment over the last decade around higher education and led to substantial and significant gains. I want to welcome Senator Ogilvie. I am delighted that he has chosen to work with this committee. He will add real lustre to the work you will do.
I am new to the AUCC. I arrived May 11, having done a number of things beforehand. I have taken the opportunity this summer to travel the country from coast to coast to coast to meet with university presidents, students and campus leaders in communities across the country.
With the caveat that I am new, I have Herbert O'Heron to my left to provide statistical background and detail. He is one of the points of unanimity in the university community in that he is a guru in higher education.
Higher education is a Canadian success story that parallels Canada's success. From a handful of elite institutions in the 1880s that played a pivotal role in building this country, we have evolved into a modern, diverse, internationally- engaged group of universities committed to advancing knowledge and improving lives. As I look around the table today, I think of those who may have been graduates of Queens University and of the role that Queens played in the early part of this country. I look to those who attended new universities as well. I draw attention to a profile of one of your members in this month's University Affairs as we celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of that magazine.
At every step in Canada's history, universities have played a valuable role. I ask you to think about your own communities and what has happened to your community over the last 40 or 50 years as universities have evolved. I think the key question for this committee going forward is: What is the narrative of the next 10, 15 and 20 years for higher education in Canada? Against a backdrop of shared responsibility for higher education, we have been remarkably successful in advancing knowledge and improving lives.
Of course, going to some basics, the foundations of our success are accessibility and excellence. Let us remember that today there are over 1.5 million students in the higher education system across Canada. There has been a 40 per cent increase in the number of spaces available in the last decade. Those are real accomplishments that parties on all sides of the house can take pride in.
That said, there is more to be done on accessibility and particularly with regard to Aboriginal accessibility.
With regard to excellence, this committee helped drive a sustained investment in research over the past decade that is generating important results for Canadians and for the world. It is a delight to read and learn about this week's Nobel Prize winner, Willard Boyle. That will spur some animated discussion about what the right balance of measures is in higher education and about what the role of the university is. We welcome that debate.
Even more important than winning a Nobel Prize is the research enterprise that is fuelling Canada's place in the 21st Century. We also need to note that important competitors are accelerating investments. I will speak to that in a moment.
In preparation for today, you asked us to speak about the economic impact of the higher education community. Let me underline that Canadian's quality of life relies on a vibrant post-secondary environment. I know jobs are on the minds of a lot of Canadians today.
One thing you may want to know is that, from August 2008 to August 2009 — the depth of the worst recession this country has faced — there were 40,000 net new jobs for university graduates. There were, however, 370,000 fewer jobs for those without a higher education degree or qualification. I think that is a very salient fact as we consider the issues you are looking at going forward. Moreover, higher-education graduates earn 62 per cent more on average than full- time workers who have not completed university.
I mentioned that I have been traveling the country. Last week, I was in Atlantic Canada and met with the president of University of P.E.I., with the president of Mount Allison University, and with a number of other university presidents. You can easily see the impact those institutions are having in their local communities and beyond the full world. Indeed, while spending an afternoon with Donald Savoie at the University of Moncton, we talked about the important role that university has played in inspiring the Acadian community and restoring its place in Canada.
When one thinks of the advances in research in terms of improved health, the use of technology, and how research is affecting our everyday life from the moment we get up until we go to bed, we see a growing role for universities in Canada's research endeavour.
On the theme of the economy, universities represent a $26-billion enterprise in Canada, employing over 150,000 people. That gives you an idea of the immediate impact in communities, large and small, across the country. Currently, universities are conducting $10 billion worth of research annually.
One of the great things that senators have the opportunity to do is to look and think ahead and make recommendations for the future. What are the challenges facing us? First, research and innovation will drive the economic growth on which Canada depends. All our fiscal forecasts depend on economic growth, which is fuelled by research and innovation.
Second, Canada is facing profound demographic and productivity challenges, and universities can play a pivotal role in addressing both of those. Third, although we have made real strides in the last decade, we need to enhance our competitive position through sustained investments.
I will speak to each of those in turn. Tomorrow morning I will appear before the Standing Committee on Finance for a pre-budget pitch, so I will moderate that pitch this afternoon. I will speak to each of those in turn.
There has been increased investment in research in Canada. It has paid huge dividends across the country. However, as recently as yesterday, it was reported that countries like India will surpass the G7 in their research productivity in the next seven years. That will have a profound impact on the kind of Canada we want.
Let me talk about the internationalization of Canadian universities. One of the great changes in the last few years has been the way curriculum has internationalized, the way Canadian students can study overseas, and the way international students can come to Canada. There is much more we can do. In short, Canada is not in this game, and we can do something about it.
Let me give a couple of examples. At present, there are 2,600 students from India studying in Canada. In Australia, there are 26,000. In Canada, there are approximately 42,000 students from China. In Australia, there are 130,000 students.
There are measures that can be taken now to address that imbalance. It plays to Canada's place in the world, our foreign policy and our future economic prosperity as those students return to their countries of origin and become entrepreneurs and trading partners. It also plays to our immigration needs. Again, having come from Atlantic Canada last week, the importance of universities as magnets for the best talent as new Canadians is profound.
There has been some mention about the constitutional realities of Australia. They have found a way to recruit students well. In the last 15 years, international education has become Australia's third largest export. It has surpassed tourism because of the number of international students studying in Australia. Therefore, Canada can do this.
Again, to make the matter reflect local reality, it might be of interest for senators to know there are now 1,000 international students studying in a community like Nanaimo. Seven hundred of them stay in families. In a community that is being really challenged by the decline of the forestry and fishing industry, the new knowledge economy is real and it is real now in communities across the countries. There is more we can do on the international front.
Let me close by talking about what I think is one of the most compelling national issues we all must face, not just the higher education community. That is the crisis in Aboriginal education. I was so pleased when I arrived at AUCC, to see that university presidents identified this as one of our significant priorities going forward. You know the issues and I understand you are about to release a report on poverty and homelessness, and I am sure the reality will be reflected therein, as well. Canada's Aboriginal population is growing at three times the national average, but there are one-third as many graduates.
Let me close by saying how I spent my Canada Day this year. I was in Iqaluit as a guest of the University of Prince Edward Island, where the first 21 masters of education students were receiving their degrees. These were the first students to earn their degree entirely in the North, through an innovative partnership of U. P.E.I. and others. It is that kind of accessibility, excellence and that kind of Canada we are all working to achieve.
In the course of your next 20 sessions, you will learn more about the research agenda and the achievements we have made. You will learn more about our need to internationalize institutions, but I also want to close by saying there is more we can do on this compelling national issue, as well.
The Chair: That will precipitate a few questions. Finally, we have Patrice de Broucker, Chief, Education Indicators and Special Projects for Statistics Canada.
[Translation]
Patrice de Broucker, Chief, Education Indicators and Special Projects, Statistics Canada: Mr. Chair, it is a great honour to be invited before the committee to present data on post-secondary education in Canada.
My presentation focuses on a few slides, which I have handed out; feel free to take a copy as it will help make things clearer.
ln light of the recent releases of education system indicators, I will try to give you an international perspective, for the most part. To some extent, that is what your committee wishes to consider, I believe. I will limit myself to presenting some relevant data on three questions.
Does Canada have more post-secondary graduates than other countries? What do the labour market data reveal about the relative situation of post-secondary graduates? What share of Canadian wealth is devoted to post-secondary education? I will proceed using the most recent indicators from publications of the Canadian Education Statistics Council and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Most of the data is for 2006-07.
First, I want to point out Canada's performance in terms of the number of people with a university degree. A quarter of working-age Canadian adults, namely those 25 to 64 years of age, have at least one university degree. That ranks Canada just behind the United States and European countries such as Norway and the Netherlands. However, Canada's education systems cannot be given all the credit. When immigrants who have been educated in their country of origin arrive in Canada, they are more likely to have a higher level of education than native-born Canadians.
Thus, immigration tends to increase the proportion of people with a university degree, but if we look at how things have evolved over time, we can make a more nuanced analysis.
For all post-secondary education combined, which includes colleges, vocational schools and universities, the increase in the number of graduates was much smaller for Canada than for OECD countries as a whole, an annual average of 2.6 per cent versus 3.4 per cent over a period of 10 years. This is clear when you look by cohort. In Canada, the proportion of adults 55 to 64 years of age with a university degree is 21 per cent, which puts Canada in fourth place among OECD countries. As for the younger generation, 29 per cent of Canadians between 25 and 34 years of age hold a university degree. An increase, to be sure, but that still puts us in twelfth place among OECD countries for this population. Countries such as Korea, Finland, Denmark, Australia and Sweden now have passed Canada, while other countries like Japan and the United Kingdom are on a par with Canada.
Clearly, individuals cannot earn a degree unless they stay in school. In Canada, the proportion of 20- to 24-year-olds who are in school is smaller than in other countries relative to the size of their population. Approximately 38 per cent of young Canadians between 20 and 24 years of age are pursuing education at some level, most of them, of course, at the post-secondary level. That is below the average for OECD countries.
Chart 4 lists a few provinces as examples, just to show that there are major variations in post-secondary education participation rates between the provinces — 44 per cent in Ontario, and 29 per cent in Alberta and Saskatchewan. The other provinces fall somewhere in between.
We now come to our second point: what are the labour market data telling us about the relative situation of post- secondary graduates? To my mind, this is key to examining the potential appeal of post-secondary education when individuals are making the decision.
If you look at the chart, you will see three indicators per country. The green triangle shows the employment rate of post-secondary graduates, which is still higher than the employment rate for all other levels of education. While the rate for Canada is still slightly lower than the average among OECD countries, it is above 80 per cent. But what is striking in Canada, where the economic conditions have certainly played a role, as we will see in a few specific regions of the country, is that the difference between the employment rate of post-secondary graduates and that of high-school graduates is smaller. The gap is smaller, so it appears there is less of an advantage, if we can call it that, to post- secondary education as it relates to the employment rate, job access.
When you look at a province like Alberta, circled in blue, the advantage strictly in terms of the employment rate is non-existent. There are so many job opportunities that young people can abandon their studies. As the previous slide showed, in Alberta and Saskatchewan, education participation rates are lower, and labour force participation rates are significantly higher.
Another indicator for which I did not include a chart also bears this out. Right now in Alberta, the advantage of having a post-secondary degree is only 7 per cent higher than that of having just a high-school diploma. The average for Canada is in the neighbourhood of 40 per cent, and in the United States, the relative advantage is 80 per cent.
For the third and last element of my presentation, I want to point out a few facts about public versus private funding of education, and how that plays out in an international comparison. With approximately 2.6 per cent of gross domestic product devoted to the post-secondary sector, Canada's total spending relative to its wealth is significant. Canada places second to the United States. Approximately one-third of this spending is directed to colleges and trade schools, and two-thirds, to universities. But what is unique in Canada, as well as a handful of OECD economies, is the public/private split. Public spending on education is equivalent to 53 per cent of the total amount spent on post- secondary education. Thus, 47 per cent comes from the private sector, especially tuition fees.
Only the United States, Australia, Japan and Korea have a similar split. In all other countries, more than 80 per cent of funding comes from the government, generally speaking. Of course, I am not making a value judgment. No one has really studied, at least not to my knowledge, whether the breakdown of spending has an impact on the appeal of post- secondary education.
As far as federal versus provincial spending goes, 18 per cent of post-secondary public expenditure is borne by the federal government, and 81 per cent, by provincial governments. The share of public spending has dropped considerably since 2000, my reference date.
In spite of this, the issue of public spending is not black and white. We do not know where on the spectrum it falls, but public spending on post-secondary education makes up 4.1 per cent of total public spending, taking into account all levels. There again, the percentage is higher in only four other countries: Denmark, New Zealand, Norway and Slovakia.
I will stop there, and I would be happy to answer your questions in either official language.
[English]
The Chair: As is the custom, I will start with a couple of questions. I will ask a different question to each of the speakers.
Dr. Cappon mentioned a national strategy on post-secondary education. You are well aware of the constitutional niceties within this country, perhaps similar to Australia, which has been cited as an example. How would you see proceeding on the idea of creating a national post-secondary strategy for Canada, given the division in the constitution where education is essentially a provincial responsibility? Obviously, this will involve the federal government as well.
Dr. Cappon: It is a good question and one I get frequently, as you can imagine.
Let us start with the Australian example. Its Constitution, drafted in 1901, is very similar to that of Canada. In it, the commonwealth government had no ostensible role in post-secondary education.
However, they do have a national strategy because they worked towards one. They thought it was necessary to have one in which there is a good relationship between the state governments and the federal government with respect to post-secondary education.
I think the key to a national strategy has nothing to do with constitutional issues or changing constitutions, it has to do with political will. That is why I referred to the European Union, given there is as yet no ministry of education in the European Union, and all countries are sovereign and have national policies on education.
What they established in the European Union was a will and a desire to integrate not just the post-secondary systems, but also the training systems of the various countries and the mobility of students among them. That is why there is such a high degree of mobility for post-secondary students among countries within the European Union. Some would argue that it is easier for Canadians to study in Europe than it is in the province next door in post-secondary education. In Europe they have systems for transfer credits and prior learning assessment recognition that we do not have across the provinces on a national basis in Canada.
Three things would be necessary, without getting into the mechanics. The first is to simply state that we want a cohesive and coherent system, as opposed to having a non-system, which is what the OECD considers Canada has as the moment.
I speak from eight and a half years of experience, having been director general of the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada, which has as its remit to work together across provinces in this regard. I do know whereof I speak with respect to that and the OECD reports. I may say, by the way, that when I was at CMEC, I used to say that the OECD could say more about education in Canada than I was allowed to do.
Second, we need to have a pan-Canadian data strategy. We outlined in our annual report two years ago what that would look like. I think a data strategy is the key. There are so many things we do not know that are fundamental, not just to the educational experience of students but to labour market outcomes.
For example, how many community college graduates are there each year? What happens to the 40 per cent of students who drop out of first or second year in their program? We have no idea what happens to those people. How can we possibly meet labour market demands?
We have such different definitions across each province, and sometimes within provinces, that we cannot compare. Statistics Canada is familiar with all those difficulties of comparing from one province to another. You cannot have a national strategy if you do not have a common set of definitions of what a school is, what a student is, and what a course and a program is. It sounds prosaic but it is important.
We set out what a national data strategy should look like. However, what we really think is necessary is an ongoing forum that will monitor the strength of this data strategy, as well as put it in place.
The third element you need, which is of key importance and goes to the first, is indicators for success. You need benchmarks if you are going to be credible, to decide whether you have met them.
I have circulated among some of you what Europe does. They have 16 indicators that are common to all of the countries, and they have benchmarks for success. They rate their progress on those benchmarks over time, not just for the European Union as a whole but for each member country. There are four categories and the experience of each member country is described within one of those categories. They are serious about benchmarking what they do; and many of those indicators and benchmarks have to do with post-secondary education and training.
The Chair: Mr. Davidson, if I could ask about Australia again, you cite those numbers of international students — how much higher they are. It is a country with a smaller population and a smaller economy, but it attracts many more international students. Maybe their climate is more suitable — they are closer to India and China, of course.
What are we doing wrong here? For years, governments in this country have been saying we want more international students. It makes economic sense. They have talked about how getting them here can help in terms of contacts when they go back home, or that some of them will even stay here. These are all good reasons; but for some reason, we do not seem to be able to get the numbers up to a level that would be at least equally as impressive as what Australia has been able to do. Why is that?
Mr. Davidson: Canada needs a stated goal; it needs to set some targets and invest at the federal level in a coordinated national approach. At this point, a number of provinces, individual institutions and consortia have been attempting internationalization strategies. What is necessary is some federal investment. One of the impacts of program review in the mid-90s was that the federal government moved away from supporting that kind of sustained investment in international student recruitment.
Australia has had it as a national priority within their foreign policy. They have identified a handful of countries that they are targeting. They are pursuing them aggressively and they have the underlying mechanics to make it work.
I will give you one example. Visa processing has been a real challenge. A university can spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to recruit a person, but if the student visa cannot be issued quickly, we lose them to Australia, Britain or the United States.
Citizenship and Immigration Canada has listened carefully to this in recent years and they have made great strides, particularly in select countries. Those best practices are being shared among Citizenship and Immigration posts around the world. It makes a huge difference whether you can get a student visa within 24 hours, which is the Australian standard, or three months, which has been the Canadian standard.
The issue is a national vision and a national strategy, sustained federal support and then making sure the mechanics are in place to get those students to Canada.
I want to underscore that there has been progress made in changing the requirements and the ability of international students to work while they are in Canada. That has made a difference in keeping that talent in Canada during their studies. It was piloted in Atlantic Canada and it is now the national standard.
The Chair: Mr. de Broucker, the first chart you have here shows Canada well up, next to the U.S. It fits with what we have understood to be the positioning of Canada in the world in terms of education, that we are well educated.
However, then there are some conflicting pieces of information. There is some conflicting information from the OECD, where we are 20th in terms of public investment in education, and perhaps further down the list in some other areas. One of your statistics says 29 per cent among the 25 to 34-year-olds, which puts us in 12th place.
Reading that and looking at the different situations in different provinces, would lead one to believe that we are slipping and that our future profile on this chart will probably be lower. Is that what you see at the rate we are going?
Mr. de Broucker: This is what we see. If you were to put the charts for the two cohorts I have mentioned, that is what you would see. One thing that must be said is that the university sector is not the only sector, and those specific charts are mainly about the university sector.
I chose to show you that for data reasons. Our reading of the college sector is not perfect at this time. We are catching up, but sometimes we need revisions in how we calculate. It is not that the way we get Canadian data is wrong, but we must map our Canadian data to international standards. That is where sometimes there is a problem.
This is why I am more confident in the data for the university sector than I can be for the college sector at the moment. That said, the recent data we have managed to produce indicates we are catching up on the college enrolment and college graduation. That shows us that the college sector would actually be one of the largest amongst OECD countries. Very few countries have both a very strong university sector and a strong college-like sector.
We must put things in perspective that way.
The Chair: Thank you. Would someone else like to comment?
Herbert O'Heron, Senior Advisor, Office of the Vice-President (National Affairs), Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada: It is the case that, in the last 10 or 15 years, Canada has fallen well behind many of the leading nations who have invested more heavily in providing opportunities to students soon after graduating from high school. We have gone from being one of the world leaders in that area to being about twentieth among the OECD countries.
The leading country now is Korea with about 45 per cent of youth soon after leaving high school being enrolled in university. Canada sits at 23 per cent, which is half the level of access to university studies as in Korea. Three nations are above 30 per cent and 13 between 25 and 30 per cent. Therefore, we are falling behind. Mr. de Broucker's numbers, which show a number of graduates at a certain age, will get worse unless we do something.
The Chair: Thank you for that further comment. I will go to the members, starting with Senator Segal from Ontario. Were you the one who was in the magazine, by the way?
Senator Segal: No, Senator Callbeck was in the magazine.
The Chair: Queen's was mentioned, so I thought it was you.
Senator Segal: I am a University of Ottawa graduate. Better the Oblate Fathers of Mary Immaculate than the Presbyterians anytime.
I think the witnesses will know that everyone around the table has a strong measure of support for post-secondary education and we are delighted that our colleague, Senator Callbeck, produced this reference in the Senate so we can do an in-depth study.
I would like to probe to see, not how we can do more to help you, but what you can do to help yourselves, and get your response to that.
The biggest problem Canadian students have is transfer standards. If they want to move from one university to another, it is not a matter of federal regulation or financing, or even of provincial regulation or financing. It is that universities go out of their way to have the most arcane and difficult standards so that students cannot transfer with any kind of facility at all. If that statement is incorrect, please put the facts on the table.
Second, there is an inability of universities to come to terms with local colleges and work on a cooperative basis. I can think of one university which had an agreement with a college with respect to a nursing degree, and then pulled that agreement after people had already enrolled, forcing those people to make an arrangement with another university far away. This raises concerns about whether the universities are doing what they can.
Dr. Cappon talks about a national data set, but at some point you need the will to cooperate. I have a sense that, certainly amongst some of the tier-one universities, the will to cooperate is more spiritual than pragmatic, or ``on the ground.''
My final question is about the role of government financing and strategies. When any government says they want to see the granting councils put more money into the hard sciences, as a humanities graduate, I am troubled by that. I do not want to see government making that decision. I want academics, based on peer review, to be making those decisions appropriately. I do not particularly want any bureaucrats, however well intended, with politicians who are equally well intended, to be setting up those kinds of standards and rules in a way that, in fact, limits the capacity of researchers, academics and students to excel in their own institution and chosen area of discipline.
I remember many years ago, a parent complained to Premier Davis that her nursing graduate daughter could not find work. Mr. Davis said, ``This is not Russia. We do not tell kids what schools to go to. They make their own decisions. Sometimes the markets work out well. Sometimes they do not. Are you really comfortable and are you saying that a grand national strategy in this confederal country would be the best way to advance the expansion of the academic and post-secondary community in a productive way?''
[Translation]
For Mr. de Broucker, my question raises statistics on two different things. I do not know whether, in your agency, there is consultation among people who work in different fields, but poverty is recognized as one of the things that limit young people early on when it comes to pursuing post-secondary education.
You have a very large department and colleagues who work on poverty files. Do you work together to put both issues in the same context, to serve as a basis for action? Or, as with other problems, do you work separately from one another, in which case a real solution could be reached only by working together?
[English]
The Chair: That is a lot. I take it you are throwing it out to the whole panel, are you not?
Senator Segal: Yes, to whomever wishes to engage the questions.
The Chair: Dr. Cappon, you can start in whatever order you like.
Dr. Cappon: I will take the third one first. There will be a division of resources among the various aspects of research because of the nature of the granting councils. We have three major granting councils, so already government is making some decisions on that level.
I am with you that resources for humanities and social science are equally important. I happen to have a doctorate in sociology as well as in medicine, so I come from both sides of this fence. With that mixed background, I find many of the issues with which we have to deal with now, at a society or individual level, are cross-disciplinary. That is the wave of the future. You cannot circumscribe it within a particular field or discipline.
I agree that a national approach is not a panacea in that regard. However, a national approach would express what you have said, namely that in the objectives we are setting as a country for ourselves in post-secondary education, there are these considerations that should be important and here is how we will execute a plan with respect to those considerations. That is how I would approach it.
Due to not having that, it is like the debate that I mentioned earlier about whether the large universities should be getting all the research money or not. We are having the debate in a vacuum. If we could have a national approach, at least we would have a context in which to have the debate rather than having it out of that context.
I have views on the other two, but I think I should let my colleagues express their opinions.
Mr. Davidson: Let me speak to the issue of the federal government directing funding to various areas of inquiry. As in everything in this country, balance is what works. I think it is fair for public funds to be directed to public purpose, broadly defined by democratically-elected members of Parliament and senators.
The converse is that if you go too far down that path, you get into a series of boutique funding arrangements That is one of the reasons, this year, our members are saying let us look at those three granting councils as the primary vehicles for research and let us get back to funding those at significant levels.
Within that big picture, there may be some direction from government that the councils could take.
On the issue of collaboration, let me just bridge by saying that the granting councils are doing a lot more collaboration than in the past. They are recognizing the need for cross-disciplinary research. Tools and incentives which enable that are welcomed and encouraged.
I am delighted by your stories about working with Mr. Davis and some of the issues faced in those days. I will tell a quick anecdote. I travelled around Queen's Park in the late 1980s where the issue of college-university degree credit transfer was a top-of-mind issue. I come back into this position 20 years later and I find it is still at the top of the agenda.
That said, considerable progress has been made. There are always examples of places where it has not worked. However, if you look to an example like the University of Guelph at Humber program, that is an extraordinary example of collaboration. It is just one of many. As you go about your hearings, if you are interesting in this area, we can point to many more areas of success and collaboration.
That takes me to another point that you made that, despite the phrase ``collegiality,'' universities are increasingly competitive with one another. That is a fact in the global higher-education community. People are out to create the best universities they can in their community. However, university presidents are increasingly seeing that the way to that is through collaboration.
I will also address the question of student transfers. It is within the power of universities to work on it and they are working on it. The experience of the past is changing. On the doorstep, people always hear of an example where it did not work.
It is often a question not only of changing from one university to another, but changing from one program to another. There are layers to that answer that can be explored.
Mr. O'Heron: In the case of Ontario, for example, there are now over 300 inter-institutional and multi-institutional agreements. In the West, all kinds of formalized agreements exist between universities, between universities and colleges and between universities and regional universities. Lots can be learned from the experience of individual institutions, applying what is working best in each area to the situation, and how college systems, especially the college- university systems, have developed in different parts of the country for different purposes.
Different approaches are required to address these things appropriately and equitably across the country.
[Translation]
Mr. de Broucker: I will just answer your fourth question. At Statistics Canada, we often work with other divisions, and tomorrow, you will hear from my colleague and good friend, Marc Frenette, who will be able to speak eloquently about the financial contribution.
A few years ago, I did a literature review in this area, and I can already tell you that the financial aspect is important when it comes to access to post-secondary education, but not the most important.
Canada has a fairly well-endowed loan system, financially speaking, and the main factor is the parents' level of education; the environment in which one grows up is the most important thing. Both are related to some extent, of course, but there is a considerable effort to diminish the financial aspect of the access to post-secondary education problem.
[English]
The Chair: I now have a list with all six remaining members of the committee on it. We have about a half hour left. That gives five minutes each for questions and answers. Please keep questions concise so you can give for time for answers.
Senator Martin: Thank you for your concise, clear presentations. I found that helpful. As a former educator having spent 21 years preparing high school students for university, my questions focus on that.
I used to tell my students that some careers they would be doing had not even been dreamed up yet. We now see this new green industry. How well are universities responding to changing demands of the world market and industry to prepare our students?
I am of Korean descent and I was recently in Korea. Education is fiercely guarded and parents will do almost anything to give their child the education they need. Australia is very aggressive in recruiting students.
I hear a lot of my former students as well as students I know in British Columbia who have trouble getting courses in the universities or colleges they have chosen. What capacity do we have even to consider increasing our international market? Are universities, in your opinion, moving toward that? Do we have that capacity or do we need to build that capacity?
Dr. Cappon: On the last question first, let me begin with an anecdote. It is somewhat negative again. A month or so ago, I had a visit from the permanent secretary for higher education in India. He was very frustrated and you might have been as well. He wanted to know who to talk to in Canada to establish beneficial partnerships.
India graduates 40,000 engineers a month. That is interesting in comparison with us. Canada is not doing well in science and engineering.
The issue of coordination in Canada that Paul Davidson mentioned is critical. I have worked on it for 15 years and made little progress since I was at the Council of Ministers of Education. We have not got it together. It is not only about attracting international students. That is only one of the four dimensions that the OECD sets out for internationalized education.
More important in my mind is Canadian pedagogical materials that can be available online. There is an enormous market. An Indian vice chancellor asked me a few years ago about how we could supply pedagogical material for his university. When I asked how many students they had in their distance university, I was told 1.3 million.
We cannot direct people who come to any particular university or any particular province. We leave them on their own because we do not have any coordination as Mr. Davidson said.
With respect to coordination and working together, Korea has a national credit bank, which is very interesting. If you earn a credits from a university, polytechnic or some other way, you can put it in the national credit bank and draw upon it when you want to access another institution of any kind or employment. That seems to be working well.
At the Canadian Council of Learning, we are working on something called a ``learning infoway.'' We drew this idea from the Australians. It is to put in one window a learning pathway for any Canadian in any part of the country no matter the level of education or resources that people can draw upon.
With respect to your question on preparing people for a green future and a more versatile way of life, the school systems are doing quite well. Canadian students in high school perform before the OECD average on much of the standardized testing. They are better problem solvers than average students in other countries. That is good.
However, whether we build on that after high school, the answer is probably not. We see a faster drop-off in the skills of Canadians after they leave formal education, whether that is after high school or post-secondary education, than in other OECD countries. There is a faster drop-off in literacy, problem-solving and other skills. We are not doing what we need to do in the workplace and in the community. There is an interaction between community life, work life and post-secondary education that we need to explore more fully.
In terms of youth and educator from K to 12, we are doing well in preparing them for a very versatile career.
Mr. Davidson: On how to develop new programs to respond to new needs, I would answer in the affirmative. One aspect of university life is that it is very market driven by demands of students. Students are demanding courses on a green economy and Canada's place in the world. Students are demanding those programs to equip them as global citizens. They are coming to university often with some international experience already and are coming to be engaged as global citizens. They are putting pressure on the system to identify and to create new programs.
Investment in research has improved the quality of education experience for students looking for new programs. Significant investment in the research chairs program has attracted leading scholars to universities across the country, large and small.
For example, I was at the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi 10 days ago. They have a world class research facility in aluminum. That makes sense for the Saguenay region. They are making huge strides in that research in how to produce aluminum with lower environmental impact and greater economic efficiency. That lab has attracted students from around the world. I met a delightful Iranian woman who has come to Chicoutimi to learn about aluminum research because that is where she sees her future. Chicoutimi is not a large institution, but it is doing world-class research.
To shift to the question about capacity for internationalization, there is tremendous capacity in the Canadian system to internationalize. We speak not only of the economic benefits, but of the pedagogical benefits. If your class is 10 per cent or more international, those students who will never leave Brandon or Regina will have an international experience in their community. There is a tremendous opportunity to go in that direction.
Mr. O'Heron: The census is a tremendous resource for us. It will help point out the degree of flexibility and adaptability of graduates.
When you look at the census now, it says how many people with a university degree working right now in the area of computer programming, have a degree in computer science. It is less than 40 per cent. They are coming from all fields — geography, history, et cetera. Why is that? Because the training and creative skills they developed while in university let them adapt when they go into in the labour force and become computer programmers.
The census is a great source when we look across all fields of study and all occupations, to say where are we getting our workers of the future? It will be the same when we move to green technologies. We are looking at a huge increase in the number of wind engineers for new energy. That is coming out of the kind of research and change taking place as a result of some of the new research programs in universities.
Senator Cordy: I was an elementary school teacher and I think that is where everybody gets their great start.
Thanks to Senator Callbeck for bringing forward the motion that we study post-secondary education and thank you for being our first witnesses. You are a great start to our study.
I have two questions that I will ask at the same time so that the chair will not cut me off. One is internationalization.
I used to be on the board of Mount Saint Vincent University in Halifax. The Atlantic universities are trying to work together, but there is frustration about the length of time it takes for students to get visas. I happened to be in Malaysia and brought this up with the trade officer. He told me that when the Australians have a student recruitment fair in Asia, they go with people from the department to process visas immediately. If a student is accepted into a university, they know they will get their visa that day or within a week.
Our students are waiting three, four or five months, which is a lifetime when you are waiting to decide what university you are going to attend. Is there any way to speed this up for students who want to come to Canada? I agree that they enrich the classroom atmosphere and many decide they are going to stay. Memorial University has found that a large number of students are staying in Newfoundland and making it their home.
I like the idea of the national strategy. However, in order to have one, we have to know what is working or not. Currently we have no benchmarks.
What I see as the challenge is the logistics of collecting the data. My experience is that universities tend to keep any information they have close to them because they are all competing for the same students and enrolments are dropping.
I would like to know how we can collect data in order that we can establish a national strategy. We have to look for things that we can do from a federal perspective and that is one of the things we can look at.
Mr. Davidson: I will speak to the issue of visa processing. It has been a concern and I think Citizenship and Immigration is moving well to address this. AUCC has worked with the department on a couple of cases where it has been an irritant, and where we have been able to identify what best practices can be employed.
Similarly, we do training with universities across the country about how to work with the immigration system. We need to acknowledge that we are living in a post 9/11 world and there are legitimate security issues and concerns. For us, the question is how to address those concerns and get the students in the classroom. We are making some progress in that regard.
Dr. Cappon: Statistics Canada is one of the best statistics agencies in the world. However, we cannot rely on them to decide on what basis to collect statistics and data, nor can we rely on them to pressure institutions and provinces to provide data in a coherent way with the same definitions.
I refer you to our 2007 report where we proposed a comprehensive data strategy for Canada in PSE. The driving principle of that is you start with the policy questions: What is it we want to know?
For example, we want to know how many community college graduates there are in each field because we want to be able to match the demand and supply in the labour market, and we do not know that now. That is just one example. We set out the chain, the critical path whereby you begin with a policy question and you end up with the data you need.
I have to refer you to that because it is about an 80-page document. You probably have it in our report from 2007, but we will send it separately because we did publish it separately as well. We are hoping that it will be acted on.
We are an organization that analyzes and talks about what works, including in other countries, but we are not an agency to program or do policy. That is up to governments and individuals.
We tackled the issue of how to make it work with respect to the mechanics of getting provinces and institutions to cooperate. Two years ago when the federal government in its budget said it would put $800 million more into PSE, we suggested that they make that contingent on there being a common definition, a common data strategy across provinces and institutions. That was not done at that time, but we still think that is a good idea.
You do not have to put it in any legislation; you do not need national ministries. I think that answers part of the question earlier from Senator Segal about how you get people to cooperate. There are some purse string issues and ways of doing it. You do not need a national system in that sense; you just need a national data reporting strategy where the definitions are in common and the data are shared so you report in a certain way. Stats Canada can then do their job in a better way than they can do it now.
In respect to that, in our report from 2007, there is a chart that shows an international overview of PSE processes and system-wide structures. There are six or seven criteria. You will see what various countries in the world have done with respect to setting up their PSE systems — Australia, Germany, U.S., Switzerland, U.K., New Zealand, Canada and the European Union. You will see that across every one of those criteria, Australia answers yes, they have done these kinds of things to make a cohesive system; the European Union is a yes against most of them; and Canada is a no against every single one.
I will make the argument — my university colleagues may not agree — I will never make the argument for less money for PSE, but I will say that money is not the only thing. Coordination and cohesion are more important. You have seen from Mr. de Broucker's remarks, we spend as much or more than most countries do in PSE but we are falling behind. The question has to be how and why is that? Your question, I think, informs that debate.
Mr. de Broucker: I would like to say a couple of things.
Yes, certainly, I follow what Dr. Cappon just said in terms of the policy question which should drive the data and the collection.
We are plugged directly into some debate, as we have two data strategies currently under discussion. One is with the Canadian Education Statistics Council (CESC), which is a joint venture between Statistics Canada and the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada (CMEC). In the context of their 2020 objectives in the Council of Ministers, one of the big objectives is to put together a data strategy that corresponds to the goals they have set for themselves.
We also have discussions about data strategy with Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC). Mainly, for HRSDC, it is geared at post-secondary and adult learning. The other one with the CMEC talks to the four pillars of the CMEC. The two data strategies do not develop in parallel tracks. Members of the CESC are part of the HRSDC consultation.
At Statistics Canada, we hope that we will finish the talks soon and get a clear mandate to collect the data that would be more appropriate for Canadians through these two strategies.
Mr. O'Heron: The universities are working with Statistics Canada on the data strategies and working closely with others to provide the kind of data that is really required. They are identifying the policy issues and needs of stakeholders, so universities themselves can film of the gaps that are maybe difficult to do at a pan-Canadian level. The institutions are working at providing common data. I can give you websites of where the common data exists in Canada already. I can show where universities are getting together, deciding on those definitions that are making it the most relevant information for students, especially in their regions where the highest demands will be.
I can pass you those websites and help you identify the real common data sets that are already valuable to students, parents and other policy members.
Senator Keon: It has been absolutely delightful listening to you. I wish we had more time.
I was very interested that the four of you talked about numbers and so forth, but no one talked about the crème de la crème: How do we produce the crème de la crème, like Cambridge, Oxford and UCLA? All my kids left Canada to go to university after their first degree, and I think they should have been able to get that in Canada. We have a huge university in Toronto, but it does not compare to Cambridge, does it, in the production of Nobel laureates? I want to know how we get there.
In that context, what about the ratio of public- and private-sector funding? They are very intimately related. The Americans enjoy this huge amount of private-sector funding, as do the British and some of the European universities. I think it gives them a lot more flexibility.
Let us talk about research. As we go down the road, the big failure of research in Canada has been the non- participation of the public sector, right?
Therefore, I want you to tell us how we produce the crème de la crème? I do not want you to go back to the big five. I have been through that in the research thing. Tell us how we get there and then tell us what we should be advocating in the way of private-sector involvement, because, until we get there, we will not get the crème de la crème.
The Chair: Who wants to tackle that?
Dr. Cappon: In my mind, the two questions are related, but I will start with the public spending issue. The problem is we have done a vast survey on Canadian attitudes toward post-secondary education. According to Canadians, what really concerns them most about PSE is not research, or crème de la crème, but access. They want their kids to get into university, usually, but, if not university, college. They are worried about the cost and access. They are not so much worried about research.
However, because the private sector in Canada is so poor in conducting research, it leaves the public sector to pick up the slack. Mr. de Broucker can tell you that Canada is one of the largest spenders on public sector finance research in the OECD. That leaves us with a quandary. The public wants access but we are already spending huge amounts on research, particularly in universities now. Over the last 15 years, we have increased it enormously.
We are in the kind of economy that makes it doubtful in my mind that we will ever get the private sector to invest as it does in the OECD on average and certainly not as much in United States, which is almost twice as much per capita.
That relates to the public-private issue because, unless we remarkably increase funding to PSE to increase access, given that we already have a lot to do on the research side, I am not sure how to get out of that situation. Indeed, we are having trouble with access because of the ratio of students to faculty growing over time, because it is hard to keep up. It will either be a lot more public expenditure on PSE or more private expenditure, more of a call on students and families and others to pay for access to universities.
That is the kind of choice. It is one of reasons I want to have a national strategy. It would allow us to have those debates. That impacts on the issue quality because, if you want the kind of quality you are talking about, Nobel Prize quality or even slightly below that echelon, you are talking about second and third degrees, particularly doctoral degrees. Canada has been slow in increasing the number of doctoral seats. We have done fairly well at the masters level, driven largely perhaps by MBAs. Perhaps that is unfair.
Regardless, there has been an increase at the masters level but not so much in doctoral degrees compared to other countries. That will be a matter of money. Of course, second and third degrees — particularly third — are tied to research funding. It would require a massive increase if you want to be in that league. It cannot be directed to one particular discipline for the reason we were talking about before. So much is cross disciplinary. It will take money for humanities, social sciences and hard sciences in order to get there.
Mr. Davidson: It has been an eventful summer in the university community, reading the media. First, the best way of achieving that kind of global ambition is to pursue excellence at every step along the way. Every university president across the country will be prepared to compete on issues of excellence, and excellence exists in every part of this country.
The second part of the answer is that universities themselves are setting that kind of global ambition and they are making their own choices internally to get them to that world level.
Third, in certain areas, Canada is at that level and the challenge now is to grow that out into other areas. I would refer to our history as a country. For many years, we did not have that global ambition, and now we do. Based on the 15 years of significant investment, I believe there is a platform where Canada could reach those levels of global excellence.
It will require sustained public investments, ambition and focus. People will welcome focus on the question of excellence. However, they get frustrated when other factors come into play.
[Translation]
Senator Pépin: I am all for the cream of the crop, but I think my question will bring everyone back down to earth.
First, let me tell you that I support post-secondary education, university or otherwise. But the college participation rate has been on the decline since 2001. It is estimated that by 2015, the workforce will need more trade program graduates and apprentices at the college level. The trend shows, however, that students are choosing university over college, which is all well and good.
How can we direct students to other types of programs in other areas of study? Given the very pressing need for trade program graduates that will be upon us by 2015, will Canada's economy suffer if we cannot satisfy that need? Will we have a problem? I am all for university education, but what do we do about the trades? Do we place enough value on them? We need them.
Mr. de Broucker: I would like to share a little anecdote on this issue, even though it falls a bit outside my role at Statistics Canada.
I was in Helsinki for an international meeting at the same time as the trade Olympics were taking place. It was absolutely incredible to see all those young people. This year, the event was held in Canada. Do you know how many medals Canada won? Did you hear about it? Do you know the winners' names? No. There were eight medals: three gold, three silver and two bronze. They were for the trades. We need to talk about them and use them.
In Calgary, the ministers got together and visited the exhibition. I hope they saw thousands of young people. I saw them in Helsinki. I did not go to Calgary. I helped with the preparations as a member of another organization. There is potential there.
Watch for those who won competitions, and invite them to speak. They are all over the country. Something needs to be done.
In Canada, if a lot of people go to college and university, it is because there are no opportunities at the end of high school or in the labour market, as compared with certain European countries. All the training is academic, and I believe we have a lot to think about in terms of finding ways to place just as much value on other types of post- secondary education.
Based on statistics that I did not provide, Canada is almost tied with the United States in terms of post-secondary graduates between 25 and 34 years of age without skilled employment. The proportion of post-secondary graduates 25 to 34 years of age with skilled employment is 64 per cent, which means that 36 per cent do not have skilled employment, practically the highest level among OECD countries.
We can conclude that Canada's labour market works in such a way that the appeal of post-secondary education is not universal.
Dr. Cappon: The first comment I want to make is that Canada has a social history defined by incredible achievements both at the individual and regional levels but it does not have any structured nationwide initiatives that can be used. That is the problem as I see it.
Furthermore, Patrice is right in saying that there is a problem in terms of matching jobs with training in Canada. Canadian community colleges are very strong. Often, when foreign visitors come here, they are much more interested in Canada's colleges than its universities.
As for what you said about directing students to universities versus colleges and polytechnic schools, unfortunately, we do not share the same views as Germany and Austria, where trades are accepted, valued and considered socially important.
But marketing efforts will not push students to attend colleges or polytechnic schools. On the contrary, parents would not react well to such a strategy, claiming that we were offering their children a less promising future.
The problem with trades in Canada has to do with apprenticeships. There are not enough spots. It is not a matter of convincing students to take up the trades or go to college. Employers simply do not offer students the spots they need.
We need a model similar to Norway's, where the state-run education system partners with industry to make enough spots available to students. There are practices that Canada could study.
[English]
Mr. O'Heron: As was pointed out, enrolments in apprentice programs have never been higher. There has been a huge increase in student demand for enrolment. Part of the problem is graduating from the programs. They are not getting the placements needed.
Businesses need trained staff and students are reacting to what they are hearing. They are going into the programs in reaction to demands in the labour market.
Since 1990, we have grown from 1.9 million jobs for university graduates to 4.1 million now. This is huge growth. Students are reacting and the institutions are reacting by providing the spaces for those students. Students are very responsive and the institutions are very responsive.
What we have to ensure is that students coming out of high school or not coming out of high school are actually going on. It is not one or the other; it is all of those options and they are much higher than they were a decade ago.
Senator Callbeck: Dr. Cappon talked about a national strategy and outlined three characteristics that should be in that strategy. No doubt you have put a lot of thought into this. Who do you feel should be taking the lead on this and how should it be developed?
Dr. Cappon: We are always reticent to say who should be taking the lead because we do not develop policy, as such. We understand that someone must be the lead. It must involve the provinces, territories, the federal government, institutions and their representatives.
We have gone out on a limb to say what the eight main goals of post-secondary education in Canada should be. We have also outlined in our report from 2007 the seven first benchmarks that Canadian PSE could adopt. We have gone that far.
On the mechanics, the intergovernmental aspect will be important. As I said before, it does not depend on constitutional change because Europe has done it.
Senator Callbeck: You do not have an opinion on whether it should be the federal government, the Council of the Federation or who should head this initiative?
Dr Cappon: As we have said in our reports, several different candidates are possibilities. It might be one or all of those working together. All will have to be involved, so we are not specifying who it should be. We hope that someone will take up the challenge.
Senator Callbeck: Mr. Davidson, I do not want to put you on the spot, but —
Mr. Davidson: I am here to serve.
Senator Callbeck: I want to ask how your association feel. Is a national strategy a top priority?
Mr. Davidson: There is room to have this kind of reflection. It needs to be a structured reflection. What the Senate committee is doing helps lay the groundwork for that kind of structured discussion.
As one new in this role, I can see manifest small-p- and large-P-politics in this terrain. We need to retire and look for a strategy that respects the constitutional realities, but moves us forward in a global game.
Senator Callbeck: Who will take the initiative? No opinions?
Mr. Davidson: Some would say that a certain number of university presidents launched the ball in Maclean's magazine this summer in calling for a federal-provincial conference on the issue. That is not the view of our association. It is a provocative idea. Maybe it is time to reflect on that kind of outcome after the Senate committee has completed its review. These things take time, but leadership can emerge.
Senator Callbeck: Do all universities belong to your association?
Mr. Davidson: We represent 94 universities from coast to coast, including degree-granting colleges. It is a much sought after membership. Because there is no formal accreditation system in Canada, many people see membership in the association as de facto accreditation. In recent years, we have had a number of newer and smaller institutions seek membership. The process is a careful one of peer review before new members are welcomed.
We could say that we speak for the known universe of universities in Canada, but new institutions are emerging all the time. They are welcome to join our membership if they meet our criteria and standard.
The Chair: On the issue of who should start this, have any of your organizations made any representation to the Council of the Federation on this issue?
Dr. Cappon: We have not. I had contact with the Council of the Federation when I was at CMEC, but not through CCL.
I think this could be done incrementally if we can get people to cooperate on several of these issues such as a data strategy and cooperating on a national quality assurance strategy, which other countries have. You can build from that.
You do not need a complete national agenda or system to begin. The best way to begin is to start somewhere. Starting with one particular, and I acknowledge fairly vast, issue like a data strategy, probably would be enough to bring people together and create the momentum that is required.
Senator Callbeck: Mr. Davidson, you spoke about doing more on an international level, and I certainly agree with you. Do you have any ideas as to who should take the initiative? Is it the federal government?
Mr. Davidson: I believe strongly the federal government should play the leadership role. I say that for a couple of reasons. Thinking of who we are trying to market to, they think of Canada first, then they think of a part of the country and then of the institution they might want to come to.
We need an overarching federal strategy and federal funds. The Government of Australia commits $25 million a year; the U.K. has committed a similar sum over many years, in addition to the work of the British Council, which plays that role.
There are the international models to look for. It requires investment, the coordination of education attachés or trade officials in post, and the work of Citizenship and Immigration officials in post to make this work together.
Together with a number of stakeholders, we are advancing this year in our pre-budget submission the need to move forward. We can work as stakeholders who can support that process, but it will require some federal support.
Senator Ogilvie: It is a fascinating subject, and one of great interest to us all. I have appreciated your comments and observations.
I would like to make two or three quick observations and then ask a specific question.
There is no doubt that the best of our best are as good as or better than they have ever been. I think the international competitions in a number of areas show that. I suspect we would not like the answers we would get if we drilled down very far and looked comparatively. That gets to the issue that underlies what we are looking at.
Second, I would note that historically, over the last 30- 40 years, — Canadian society largely devalued technical and vocational training. I think that has substantially led to the issues we have today, even in a world that has changed substantially and where those training aspects are critically used.
I had the opportunity to be part of a benchmarking exercise of European vocational program a few years ago. There is an enormous and dramatic difference between how we and they approach those issues and deal with the issue of transfer of credits. That is a result of having a highly indicator-based, vocational kind of training that leads to quality evaluation capabilities.
On the issue of whether we have a system or not of PSE, it is one which your member institutions will argue vigorously that we do not, that they are all independent. However, in fact, if we look at the number of magnificent universities we have in this country, they are all different but they are part of a system. It may well be that we might internally look at the kinds of questions of developing a national kind of system. I would argue that your association has a role to play in that.
On the issue of students going on to PSE and the drop in participation rates over time, my personal experience is that the number of students leaving high school with the qualifications to enter university, particularly in the significant demand programs, has been declining. It is particularly dramatic among males.
Over a period of time, I did a personal survey in a certain part of the country and observed that the number of males graduating with the qualifications to get into university — meaning an honours leaving certificate or something of that type — constituted, in some cases, as little as 10 per cent of the graduating class. If you look at the composition of university entrance classes, over the last 20 years it has gone from 60 per cent male to 60 per cent female.
There are substantial issues in the K-12 system, and the motivation of students. It is not just an access issue based on money or anything else. There are other substantial issues.
My question comes to two things. I appreciated the observations with regard to developing a national strategy. I would suggest that the volley that the Big Five threw could be picked up within the research community in the universities, which largely control the research grants and the award of grants within our country, and actually lead themselves in developing a national strategy.
With regard to those overall issues, I know we have a lot of data on the programs that students choose. Have we done a comparison across the countries we are comparing in your tables? For example, have we taken the 10 largest enrolment programs at the undergraduate level in universities within each of those countries and compared them? Are there any significant differences in the programs that students enter in large numbers?
That goes to an issue of either quality or lack of quality standards within academic programs. Have we done that kind of comparison?
Mr. de Broucker: Unfortunately, at the international level, we have to aggregate the data a little too much to see huge differences. That said, I can give some information with respect to what Dr. Cappon said about fewer Canadians going into engineering. At that level, if you disaggregate to about 10 major areas, we definitely can give you some data.
Senator Ogilvie: Engineering will not be a large enrolment program, relative to the large enrolment programs in a university.
Mr. de Broucker: Not in Canada; but in some other countries, it is.
Senator Ogilvie: That is right, not in Canada. If we had the numbers, I think it would show some startling comparisons of the type that you have just indicated that are important with regard to a national strategy.
Mr. O'Heron: You also need to match the demand for engineers in our economy and society. How many engineering jobs are there in our economy, compared to other countries?
Again, students are quite responsive to the demands in the labour force and the institutions are responsive to the students. You have to look at the economic structure as well, and you see very different things.
You mentioned that there are 40,000 engineers in India a month. There was huge demand for engineers in that country — or there was the last time we were looking at that kind of data. The biggest unemployment rates were for engineers from India. Why? Because of the huge range in quality of the program. Many of the engineers are getting degrees that are not valued degrees. It is not just numbers; it is a matching up of a whole host of things.
Senator Ogilvie: I do not want to belabour that but we cannot leave that comment in isolation. If you look at our largest programs, you will find a similar issue. That is why I asked the question. I do not want to get into that.
Dr. Cappon: On both of the questions, the reason the European Union gives science and engineering graduates as one of its benchmarks is because it considers it to be a salient point in terms of the competitiveness of the European economic space and PC space.
We cite a study in our 2007 report of 11 OECD countries, showing that Canada ranked 10th in science and engineering degrees among 11, so there is a huge difference. There are significant differences in what we take up.
With respect to the issue of the gender gap, which is important to mention, our last data — and I think the gap is probably larger than this now — show that 61 per cent of graduates from university are women. We are talking about a huge change in less than a generation. The question is what is happening to the men and what is happening to that human and social capital, especially when they cannot get into apprenticeships because there are no apprenticeship positions for them?
There is an enormous sociological challenge going on here and we are almost unaware of it, probably because of a kind of reverse political correctness whereby we are not allowed to talk about males when they are failing. We need to pay some attention to this issue.
The Chair: We have reached the time to terminate our meeting unfortunately, because it has been a good meeting and a good start to the examination of post-secondary education in Canada. Thank you very much again to all four of you for participating with us, and thank you, colleagues.
We are going to have the second round on this subject tomorrow. Next week, we will be not meeting; but the week after we will be on Bill C-6 and also the city subcommittee. It will be the first meeting of Bill C-6. I am not sure how many meetings it will take; I have to look at the list.
Senator Segal: At least 20 or 30 on Bill C-6.
The Chair: That is it for now. The meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)