Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 5 - Evidence - May 5, 2010
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 5, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 4:16 p.m. to study the accessibility of post-secondary education in Canada.
Senator Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Welcome to the Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
[English]
Today, we are continuing our study under an order of reference from the Senate, with regard to post-secondary education, PSE. We are looking at the indirect financing issues and as they relate to PSE. We are pleased to have with us today three representatives of important organizations in this regard.
From the Association of Canadian Community Colleges, we have Terry Anne Boyles, Vice-President, Public Affairs; from l'Association des universités de la francophonie canadienne, we have Kenneth McRoberts, President, and Christophe Kervégant-Tanguy, Director General; and from the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, we have Paul Davidson, President and Chief Executive Officer.
We have agreed on the order of presentation. Mr. McRoberts will go first, followed by Ms. Boyles and then by Mr. Davidson. Following their presentations, we will open the floor to questions.
Please proceed.
[Translation]
Kenneth McRoberts, President, Association des universités de la francophonie canadienne: First, I must thank the honourable committee members for their invitation to testify on the crucially important problem of the accessibility of university education in French outside Quebec.
In May 2005, the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages recommended to the Government of Canada: "The establishment of a well-coordinated, pan-Canadian system of post-secondary education in the French language."
The committee showed that post-secondary education in French was vitally important in enabling the francophone communities and Canada to develop the next generation and dynamic leaders and players in the country's economic, political and cultural sectors.
A number of studies have shown that university education must be understood as one of the points on the education continuum where the minority context raises numerous challenges that are still to be met, and attention must be paid to the constraints on access and to the needs of francophone and bilingual students. There are also francophiles students, who come from the immersion programs and depend on the accessibility of programs in French. The degree of vitality of the francophone communities is the future of the Canadian Francophonie, an intrinsic component of Canada.
I should say a little about the Association des universités de la francophonie canadienne. The Association represents 13 francophone and bilingual institutions outside Quebec.
They include the Université Sainte-Anne in Nova Scotia, the Université de Moncton in New Brunswick, and seven universities in Ontario: the Collège universitaire dominicain in Ottawa, the Collège universitaire Glendon of York University in Toronto, the Université de Hearst at the University of Sudbury, the University of Ottawa, Laurentian University and the Université Saint-Paul. There is also the Institut français at the University of Regina, le Collège universitaire Saint-Boniface and, lastly, the Saint-Jean campus of the University of Alberta.
These are the only institutions offering French-language programming outside Quebec that are open to francophone students, but also to francophile and foreign students. The programs offered cover various disciplines such as the arts, sciences, social sciences, engineering, law, management and health.
Some 30,000 students have taken courses with us in French, particularly at the undergraduate level. I believe it has to be acknowledged that our institutions operate on francophone islands, and that they are an asset for the development of intellectual, professional, social and linguistic skills.
As a result, students experience linguistic duality on a day-to-day basis, demonstrating that bilingualism is an essential skill in various sectors such as health, education, research and public administration. We know that the federal government, like other governments, is facing the challenges involved in renewing the public service, schools administration, the language industry and tourism. It must be said that the francophone communities live in a symbiotic relationship with these universities.
I would like to address two topics: access for francophones and francophiles to university education outside Quebec and the situation with regard to research in French at our member institutions.
With regard to access for francophones and francophiles to university education outside Quebec, the report that Bob Rae prepared for the Ontario government a number of years ago showed that francophones and francophiles are still under-represented in certain undergraduate programs in Ontario.
In their recent report, which was well supported by quantitative and qualitative analysis, the author notes:
The percentage of young francophones from Ontario who have access to post-secondary education has increased slightly over the years, but the vast majority go to college rather than university and the proximity or, on the contrary, the distance from post-secondary institutions is a decisive factor in students' choices.
Students can study in English at universities virtually everywhere in Canada outside Quebec. Where a challenge still remains is in being able to get a university education in French. For many francophones, the issue of geographic access to francophone institutions is fundamentally important.
This same report concludes that geographic proximity to programs seems to be the most important factor in the decision young francophones make as to whether they will study at university in English or in French. Many graduates do not have a lot of options and have to move to another region at extra expense to them. Perhaps they will decide to study in English or simply abandon their education plans. These are real options for them.
Francophone students do not have access equal to that of students who wish to pursue a university education in English because funding sources do not help offset these constraints. Available financial aid in pursuing an education in French is distinctly inadequate, and this is one of our recommendations. One has to consider the situation of francophones outside Quebec, who live in areas where they cannot study in French and who need scholarships and bursaries.
In conclusion, I will simply say that our institutions are well positioned to offer anglophone students who have attended immersion schools the opportunity to study in French. If they do not use French in their post-secondary studies, they will lose their language skills and the investment by the federal and provincial governments will be lost. I believe this is a central issue, and it is essentially our institutions that are able to respond to this situation.
There are clearly a number of barriers to French-language research at our institutions, including their small size and remoteness. Greater support must be provided for what has already been accomplished for our institutions to have French-language research capacity.
We propose that scholarships and bursaries be made available to francophone and francophile students so they can study at university in French. We also suggest that the programming offered in French be expanded and that consideration be given to the various options for supporting research in French at our institutions.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. Ms. Boyles, you have the floor.
Terry Anne Boyles, Vice-President, Public Affairs, Association of Canadian Community Colleges: It is a pleasure for the association to again appear before the committee. Patricia Lang, president of Confederation College, appeared before you on our behalf on rural and remote access to post-secondary education. You have that brief and those recommendations as well.
Today, I will focus primarily on the question of post-secondary transfers and touch a bit on areas of access for disadvantaged learners to reinforce that point.
Our association is the national and international voice for a range of institutions under different names. We use the word "colleges," which is an inclusive term. Our membership base includes institutes of technology; specialized institutes, such as the Justice Institute of British Columbia and the Fisheries and Marine Institute attached to Memorial University of Newfoundland; the polytechniques, CEGEPs and about eight francophone colleges outside of Quebec; a number of the First Nations colleges; and the Canadian Coast Guard College, which is a federal institution.
There are campuses in over 1,000 communities. The college mandates are really tied to the economic, social and cultural futures of their communities.
I will speak to the issue of post-secondary education transfers in funding, within the context of the crisis in advanced skills for the country. There is an organization that has come together called the Employers' Coalition for Advanced Skills. This is a group of business associations and the Canadian Labour Congress, which have come together because they are concerned about the capacity of colleges to meet their needs for advanced skills education into the future.
Even before the recession, two years ago, when we spoke to the finance committee briefs, they raised the spectre of the skills crisis facing their industries, whether from demographic reasons or advancements of technology. For many of their industries that did not go down during this recent economic recession. They met again this morning because of their fear. The spectre is still dominant in industries. It includes 21 national industry associations, such as the Canadian Healthcare Association; the Railway Association of Canada; the Tourism Industry Association of Canada; the Canadian Federation of Independent Business; the Canadian Construction Association, which is the major voice; and the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, et cetera. They have serious concerns about their future and what it will mean in terms of the drivers of the economy, and the ability of the country as a whole to be able to maintain the social programs which are so critical to all of us as Canadians.
Even before the downturn, colleges had massive waiting lists; many are multi-year in nature. Nova Scotia Community College, for example, has a two-year wait list for their electrical programs and electrical technician programs, which are critical to the manufacturing sector, mining and fishing.
They are even greater with the economic downturn.
I will look at it in terms of post-secondary transfers. In 2001, we finally got back to the same level as 1992-93 in real dollars on the nominal post-secondary education transfer. That is in real dollars, so I am not taking inflation into account. There have been some increases: $800 million per year added and there is an escalator, but they are nominal within the CHST, Canada Health and Social Transfer.
The government's position has been that the transparency for post-secondary transfers within the CST, Canada Social Transfer, as well as for early childhood and social programs, has been assured through the nominal allocation for each of those three sectors. It is our view that the reality has led to a lack of transparency and accountability back to Parliament; that Canadians, just like in the health care sector, want to see how their monies are being used; and they want to see clear objectives and measurable outcomes.
The view of our business partners is that, with the critical advanced skills crisis in the country, the total dollar value, even if they could be assured the monies were going for post-secondary education, are inadequate to meet that looming advanced skills crisis in the country.
The people on employment insurance, EI, particularly as the result of the recession that has been upon us, are now coming to the end of their EI benefits. They are unable to continue in their post-secondary education programs. They are falling, to a great extent, onto the social assistance roles. Indications are that there are cuts in the post-secondary funding across the country that are directly related to the increasing costs on the social welfare rolls. With the post-secondary education transfer blended into the social transfer, we are seeing significant declines and concerns in that area.
We see that as a lose-lose situation in unemployment but also because there are already wait lists for post-secondary education, particularly in the colleges of the country. It is also a lose-lose for the other part of the population who are ineligible for EI in the first place, but who are on wait lists to get into post-secondary programs and who are people the economy needs.
Our brief also addresses access for disadvantaged learners. With the demographic changes that you are well aware of, Canada needs all of the people who are able to enter into the workforce, and who choose to go there, to be able to participate.
There are a number of funding mechanisms, particularly for the disadvantaged groups. There is a confusing complexity. There is incongruence as well as inequities between the funding programs, which are characterized by fragmentation in those inequities. There is also a huge issue of literacy: 42 per cent of working Canadians lack the literacy skills they need to engage in employment in the country.
In our last appearance, we addressed other concerns. Certainly, our goal is 5 per cent of applied research for the colleges and institutes. The Employers' Coalition for Advanced Skills is saying that. They need their employees to come in with those problem-solving and technology-transfer skill sets, and small- and medium-sized businesses can access those partnerships from the colleges of the country. We spoke to the cap on post-secondary monies for status Indian and Inuit students, and our ongoing concern about the capital infrastructure of our colleges and institutes, which were built with the federal Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act in the early 1960s, so they are institutions paid for by federal funding and most of that funding, under the partnership of the provinces, is falling apart.
We recommended a dedicated post-secondary transfer. We also believe there is a need to work with provinces and territories to ensure that the transfer payments allocated for post-secondary education are allocated on a proportional basis with the colleges and other post-secondary institutions in the country, and that they are tied to the advanced skills needs of the economy.
There is a serious need for the examination of all federal programs, particularly those targeted at disadvantaged learners, to eliminate the fragmentation in equities and the inadequacy of those funding programs.
I will be pleased to answer any other questions. I know there was a question last time about the Neil Squire Foundation and I actually have worked with him if there is a question on that.
[Translation]
Paul Davidson, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada: When I last appeared in October, I started my presentation by describing the success of post-secondary education in Canada and the similarities with the success Canada is experiencing.
[English]
I want to use my opportunity today to talk about how higher education will help position Canada for the future and how universities, through their teaching, discovery and engagement, fuel Canada's economy. More Canadians than ever want a university education. There is a good reason for that. There has been a 40 per cent increase in the number of places at universities since 1999. However, the reason Canadians want the university education is because that is where the jobs are. Canadians recognize that university graduates continue to be among the most in demand in Canada's employment market.
I will just underscore that — through the depth of the worst recession in the last 60 years, from September 2008 to March 2010, there were 150,000 net new jobs in Canada for university graduates. At the same time, there were 680,000 fewer jobs for those without a university education. That talks about the changing nature of our economy.
It is not just a recent phenomenon. Since 1990, jobs filled by university graduates have doubled from 1.9 million to 4.2 million in 2009. There is a huge demand for university graduates.
Again, the value of the degree is recognized in a variety of ways. For example, it is estimated that, over a lifetime career, someone with a university degree will earn, on average, $1 million more than those without a degree. Therefore, there are economic reasons to be hiring and producing university graduates.
At the same time, students benefit directly from the research conducted at universities. I know it is part of your committee's mandate to look at how the research mechanisms work.
The successful operation of the federal mechanisms that support university R&D is critical to ensure Canada's continued prosperity. When I was last here in early October, we talked about student aid and broader questions of accessibility, but I will just speak briefly about some of the challenges on the R&D front and then link that back to questions of federal-provincial funding. As this committee prepares to look into the federal R&D mechanisms, I want to share some of the things we already know.
First, Canada's granting councils are among the best in the world. They have recently all undergone the federal strategic review process, and they conduct regular peer reviews of their programs and structures. We have a strong foundation of granting councils.
Moreover, in the last decade, the councils have come together to jointly manage a number of programs, from scholarships for graduate students to the flagship research chairs and multi-year cross-sectoral research networks. These tri-council programs recognize and reward our strongest minds at each stage of their career.
In some cases, such as the newly established business-led Networks of Centres of Excellence, it is still too early to gauge their overall success, but we know that programs like the Canada Research Chairs are clearly making a difference in the quality of the research happening on Canada's universities and the linkages to the teaching experience.
It is important to note as well that, on the tenth anniversary, of the Canada Foundation for Innovation, CFI, an international panel conducted a rigorous review of the agency and concluded that the CFI is the most successful and effective research funding organization of its kind in the world. It is easy to denounce the shortcomings and to find fault, but we have a pretty strong foundation to our research and innovation agenda in this country.
Together, these federally funded mechanisms support a comprehensive system that addresses all stages of a researcher's career and the necessary supporting infrastructure. There is, of course, ongoing concern with the level of resources provided to cover all the research costs, but universities are able to, and do, make a significant contribution through research for the benefit of all Canadians.
One of the things we also know is that the face of innovation is a changing one, and so we welcome the federal budget's commitment to review federal R&D spending. We look forward to discussing how to improve the impact of these investments, how to drive higher levels of innovation and productivity in the private sector, and in particular to examine where university research intersects with the private sector and knowledge-sharing technology transfer and commercialization that takes place, because innovation is about more than patents, licences and spinoff companies.
This committee is incredibly well equipped to address some of these questions. I am thinking of Senators Ogilvie, Seidman, Dyck and Keon. It is wonderful that you are here today as you wrap up your senatorial careers. You are all former university researchers yourselves, who have done both applied and discovery research, and you know the tremendous importance that this brings to Canada and to the world.
I understand that Senator Demers has other commitments, and we are all hoping he is successful in his work in bringing a Stanley Cup to Montreal. I hope to see Senator Raine when I visit Thompson Rivers University later this spring. These two senators would certainly understand how the research and innovation in Canada's sporting life has improved Canada's performance at the sporting level.
We all take great pride in what happened at the Vancouver Olympics but I will reference, in passing, visiting the University of Calgary's Olympic facilities this year, 22 years afterwards, and seeing how those investments have turned into private-sector applications, improved quality of life and health care, and improved competitive sport performance.
The final element in the innovation process is sharing new knowledge in the commercialization of products and services. Senators in this room — Senators Cordy, Martin and Merchant — will appreciate the work of researchers at McGill, Concordia, Wilfrid Laurier and Lethbridge, who have designed interactive web-based programs that improve literacy across Canada. This free tool offers resources for teachers and is fun and engaging for students.
Innovation can be found through crises. For example, following the outbreak of H1N1 in Mexico last year, the University of Manitoba researchers realized the first complete genome sequence of H1N1, and this critical step enabled public health officials to bring the vaccine to market in a matter of months. I was in Phoenix in March of this year, speaking with university presidents from the United States. The international advisor to the president of Mexico publicly congratulated Canada for the tremendous work that was done in isolating the genome sequence, and in helping fast-track the development of the vaccine.
Having spoken about the R&D side, I will now speak about students. I have mentioned already that the number of places in university has increased by 40 per cent since 1999, and that is a reflection of the demand for those places.
We are also looking at the demographic challenges facing Canada. The global competition for highly qualified personnel will grow, making it increasingly difficult to maintain the growth we have achieved using highly educated new immigrants. I think we are all coming to terms with the economic challenges facing this country, their impact on health, and the productivity challenges underlined there.
Let me close by speaking about federal-provincial transfers. We are pleased that the government, through this economic downturn, has committed to maintain the transfers at the current levels. We recognize that as an important policy choice they have made. We are also aware that the demands for accessibility and quality will continue to grow. Collectively, federally and provincially, we need to work together to identify a way to secure investments in higher education to make sure we have the most skilled, best educated and most innovative population in the world.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. We will now move to the questioning segment of our meeting.
Senator Eaton: Ms. Boyles, could you go over the social transfer? In the social transfer from the federal government to the provinces, is there not a separate envelope for education?
Ms. Boyles: The social transfer is one transfer. There are indicative amounts for early childhood investment, for social programs and for post-secondary education. In the documentation they are called nominal allocations, but the provinces and territories are at liberty within the social transfer to move some allocations.
Senator Eaton: In this report, we could recommend that there be a separate envelope where the provinces could distribute the money as they wished, but it would have to go to education — would it?
Ms. Boyles: We certainly believe there is a necessity for money for early childhood education, for people who are trained in our institutions, the educators, and for the social transfer. The monies for post-secondary education should be designated for post-secondary education in a way that they can be accounted for back to Parliament and back to the broader Canadian public, so that the institutions providing the post-secondary education have a predictable funding mechanism.
Senator Eaton: Are you saying that the provinces should have the discretion to decide how much is going to the University of Toronto and how much is going to you, but it should be designated specifically to higher education?
Ms. Boyles: Our proposal is that the allocation be proportional. Just as there is allocation on a per-capita basis, there should be a proportional allocation based on the nature of the post-secondary structure within the respective provinces.
Senator Eaton: I wonder how the provinces would take that politically. It is something this committee can think about as part of our recommendations. Thank you.
Senator Martin: I have a quick question. Are we hearing from Mr. Kervégant-Tanguy?
The Deputy Chair: We have heard the representatives of the three organizations. They can participate in the discussions as they see fit with regard to the issues that they wish to address.
Senator Martin: Thank you all for being here and for your presentations today.
I am interested in finding out about the universities and colleges for the francophone community. Is it safe to assume that, because there are fewer universities and colleges in your membership, the tuition rates would generally be a bit more expensive if they are smaller institutions, or are they comparable?
Mr. McRoberts: They are comparable. Typically, the tuition rates are set by the provincial governments, and certainly that is the case in Ontario. It is standard throughout our members in Ontario.
Senator Martin: When you talk about access to your institutions, is it largely geographical access?
Mr. McRoberts: Yes, that is our concern. Many would be in localities where there is not a bilingual or francophone institution. Otherwise, they opt for education elsewhere.
Senator Martin: Do you have any satellite campuses on other institutions or locations, perhaps in the urban centres, or have you thought about that option?
Mr. McRoberts: Some of our members do have satellite campuses, such as the University of Moncton.
[Translation]
Christophe Kervégant-Tanguy, Director General, Association des universités de la francophonie canadienne: We have the universities of Hearst and Sainte-Anne. So the problem, which is to get closer to the clientele, is more spread around in this way since people are often located far away from urban and highly urbanized areas.
Another factor that could be useful with regard to the campus is the use of new information technologies and their integration into teaching, not just giving courses. This would permit better distribution and thus make it possible to bring the clientele and the university closer together.
[English]
Senator Martin: I am curious about how best we can support the institutions that do teach post-secondary education in French, especially for students not just from the francophone community. I was in French immersion in both middle school and high school. Other than the obvious challenge of geography, in what innovative ways would you be reaching out, and how best can we support your institutions?
Mr. McRoberts: It is critically important that students who have gone through French immersion programs continue to use French at the university level. Otherwise, that investment is just being wasted. Geography is important, so we are asking for some consideration like bursaries so students can get to an institution that can offer a university education in French.
We are also concerned with the range of programs that some of our institutions can offer, which is quite limited. This takes us back to federal-provincial agreements and the official languages and education agreements set for each province. If there are ways to increase support for institutions in that way, that would make the possibility of studying in French more attractive, certainly to graduates from immersion schools, but also for francophones who might be otherwise tempted to opt for English.
Ms. Boyles: In addition to the geographic barriers, our francophone member institutions outside of Quebec have a real concern with the lack of financial support for the translation of existing curricular materials, particularly in some of the sophisticated, new, leading-edge technological applications that have been developed in their counterpart anglophone institutions. It is one of the things they bring to our annual meeting every year.
Mr. Davidson: When I was last here, I spoke about the importance of international opportunities for Canadian students as global citizens. At that point, I said that fewer than 3 per cent of Canadian university students have an opportunity internationally in pursuit of their degree. It is also interesting to note domestic student mobility. It applies certainly to francophone students, but also to students right across the country. Fewer than 10 per cent of Canadians will study outside their province. If we are talking about creating globally engaged Canadian citizens who are fully equipped, it would be worthwhile to consider ways to increase the mobility of Canadian students in pursuit of their degrees in either or both official languages.
Senator Peterson: I assume you are aware that the First Nations University of Canada in Regina is on the verge of closing its doors. Could you give your thoughts as to what impact this would have on the accessibility of post-secondary education for First Nations students?
Ms. Boyles: First Nations University is not one of our members, although a number of other First Nations institutions are. I also sit on the board of the Aboriginal Human Resource Council. At an Aboriginal human resource conference last week in Toronto, there was an across-the-board concern by the members, by our college members, by the business community, by the Aboriginal institutions, about the closure of the First Nations institution.
In Saskatchewan, though, the Saskatchewan Indian Institute of Technologies, which is also part of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, FSIN, has a very strong reputation. They have been looking at ways, through the FSIN, to have complementarity with the University of Regina, to ensure specialized degree access and bridging between diplomas and degrees, and into degree programs in the colleges as well.
Mr. Davidson: When I was here in October, we spoke about access for Aboriginal students, and success for Aboriginal students is one of our key priorities. It continues to be a key priority. I would remind you that the Aboriginal population is the fastest growing in Canada, three times the national average, and university attainment is one-third the national average, so we have a national issue to address here.
The approaches that the AUCC have been recommending include increased financial support for students, increased support for the universities to provide an environment in which students can succeed in, and reach-back programs for the primary and elementary school systems to create a track for Aboriginal students.
With regard to the First Nations University of Canada, I visited their campus in January at the request of the university. They are a member of our association, as is the University of Regina and the University of Saskatchewan. One of the hopeful signs to be seen from the difficult circumstances they have gone through is that there is tremendous goodwill amongst the various parties to ensure the success of that institution. There have been some very difficult days in the last three months, but the University of Regina and the university have made a remarkable agreement in terms of how to proceed. The provincial government is back at the table. The federal government has offered some transitional assistance, and they are continuing efforts to expand the federal involvement.
It is important to keep in mind here that we need to ensure greater access and greater success for Aboriginal students. There are a variety of models and mechanisms to achieve that. Interesting work is happening right across the country on this, and we need to take those lessons and apply them across the country.
Senator Peterson: I would make the comment that it would be a tragic loss of capacity, with all the challenges being faced by the educational facilities in Canada.
Senator Eaton: You remarked about how few Aboriginal students actually get to post-secondary education. A few weeks ago, we heard testimony from AFN, Assembly of First Nations, Chief Shawn Atleo who was saying that, in the next five years, they hope to graduate 65,000 Aboriginals out of post-secondary education or to post-secondary education. When I asked him what concrete steps he was taking, he embarked on a conversation about negotiations with the government. Have you had any conversations with Chief Atleo about how to move young Aboriginals into the post-secondary education system?
Mr. Davidson: Yes. We work closely with both Shawn Atleo and the AFN. We are involved in a number of ways, including a meeting of 20 Canadian universities with Aboriginal leadership, to discuss within existing resources and powers what more can be done to improve access. That is a continuing process. We are working with the National Aboriginal Achievement Foundation to stretch further within our own institutions to meet the ambitious goals that Shawn Atleo has set out. We support his ambition, focus and clarity on the critical need to increase the access and success rate for Aboriginal students.
Senator Eaton: Will you come up with definite steps?
Mr. Davidson: Absolutely. Within the existing resources and powers, the universities are working together to improve both the accessibility and success. There are impressive case studies, but they have been done individually.
Senator Eaton: If you do so by the time this report gets out, would you mind sending to the chair the steps that you are taking? It would be interesting and we could all learn from it.
Mr. Davidson: I will follow up with the chair. The federal government indicated in its budget a commitment to examine the architecture of support for Aboriginal students. That is critically important because the funding has been capped since 1996. It is not keeping pace. We have to ensure that we have the right mechanisms, but we will need to invest in this area.
Ms. Boyles: Similar to UCC, we are working closely with the national Aboriginal organizations and are joining with them on some of their meetings on the Hill, with not only the AFN but also the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and the Inuit.
I was president of the college in Saskatoon at one point in time. About 65 per cent of the student body were Aboriginal. We are worried now, as is the AFN, about the deskilling that is happening. There are now about 27,000 students who are eligible for post-secondary, either at college or at university, in the country that have not been able to get in. They are losing their skills, particularly their math and science skill sets. We are concerned with reverse role modelling. In the goal of 65,000 to complete high school, the Aboriginal youth are saying that many of the early role models have not been able to get on with post-secondary education, so why should we continue with our education? It is a crisis at this point.
Senator Hubley: I also wanted to touch base on this issue. I believe there is a gender issue involved also with the Aboriginal community, in that the female population appears to be more successful at achieving academic goals than the male population. How will you be addressing that disparity or gap?
Ms. Boyles: There are two ways. Certainly, the colleges deal with it directly because they have campuses in over 1,000 Canadian communities, and many are serving the rural remote northern areas. We have a symposium on serving rural and remote Aboriginal communities in Yellowknife this fall. I am dealing with the urban agenda with the various business and industry partners. This morning I mentioned the Employers' Coalition for Advanced Skills; Aboriginal participation in post-secondary education; engagement of Aboriginal youth, particularly male youth; and the provision of internship and practical applications, for example, in the mining communities where they can see that direct application right away. They can then get advanced standing and credit. If they are not able to get the post-secondary funding, they can do that.
The other program is the Aboriginal skills employment framework through HRSDC, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, which has additional Aboriginal resource agreement money. It is partnering at the local community level in rural and urban Canada to keep Aboriginal youth engaged and moving forward.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Champagne: I would like to go back to the problems of young minority francophones. They very often live in smaller communities and, for them, getting a post-secondary education means moving, living far away from their families and habits.
Mr. Davidson, earlier you said you had financial assistance through student loans and bursaries, which differ from province to province. Are the universities and colleges making an effort to help students adjust to their new environment, often very different from what they have known?
[English]
Mr. Davidson: Mr. McRoberts may have more first-hand experience because he is involved in the day-to-day work of ensuring students can adapt to new environments.
It is a fact that students are coming to university younger than before, with the elimination of Grade 13 and other advances in education. The need to provide a supportive learning and living environment for students is something that universities take seriously. A number of universities across the country have adapted their programs to ensure that, in that first year, there is attention and support to help people adjust to the realities of living away from the home, living in a new part of the country, living in a new community, and living as young adults. These are real challenges for today's young people. Mr. McRoberts might have more to offer.
[Translation]
Mr. McRoberts: You are right to emphasize the importance of universities for the francophone minority communities. It is the future of those communities that is at stake. The leadership of these populations has to be renewed.
Our institutions are generally very close to their communities. They have been designed by the communities, historically. They are of moderate, often limited size. Consequently, adjustment is not a particular problem for these students.
However, you mentioned the situation of students who have to go to another place because there is no francophone or bilingual institution in their community. The problem, of course, is financial. It is essential that we find additional ways to enable these students to attend a francophone institution.
I do not get the impression there are any special problems associated with the students, since the institutions are of limited size. They live in residence, which gives them the opportunity to get settled in a francophone environment.
Mr. Kervégant-Tanguy: These university institutions provide assistance, on their own scale, through loans and bursaries. They definitely do not have a variety of bursaries or the framework to make these students more mobile or to assist them in gaining access to university.
Senator Champagne: A few months from now, my grand-daughter will be going to Cegep, an educational institution that stands between high school and university. As a grandmother, I am already concerned about seeing her leave her suburb, where everything is going well, to go to a big city. I think about these young people who live in a small parish, in Manitoba or Saskatchewan, and who really have to move to the big city.
Her mother and grandmother would really like her to be in a safe place, where we can keep an eye on her and where she knows what time she has to go home. This troubles me, and yet it is so important for these young people who live in a place where French is less vibrant.
They are the ones who will continue the language, and it is important for them to be welcomed with open arms, to have the necessary funding to pursue their education and to feel right when they leave their village for the big city. In my opinion, these are enormous responsibilities for you.
Mr. McRoberts: I agree. In general, I think our institutions are able to discharge those responsibilities. It is indeed important for these centres to be welcoming for students who come from small places.
They will always have the opportunity to go to another institution, closer to home, but anglophone. That would be a more affordable solution, but one that ultimately would not help renew francophone society.
Senator Champagne: People who believe in the French fact in Canada, as I do, will prefer them to attend a francophone university somewhere.
[English]
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much for being here; it is helpful to us.
Mr. Davidson, thank you. You certainly did your homework on the committee. I did not realize we had so many teachers and researchers on our committee until you started naming everyone. Teachers are always interested in social affairs and ensuring that people are doing well.
I would like to talk about the dedicated post-secondary transfer, rather than all the money coming in under the social transfer. I meet with a number of students every year, both university and high school students. Perhaps because I am from Nova Scotia, tuition costs are at the forefront of everyone contemplating going to university. The issue that comes up next is dedicated post-secondary transfer. We always have this federal-provincial jurisdiction problem in Canada.
I understand exactly what you said about the openness and transparency. I remember having this discussion when the committee was studying health care. It was the same type of thing: Just giving the money to the provinces but not necessarily knowing how it was spent and whether it was being spent for health care.
How do we "square the circle"? If we were to have dedicated post-secondary transfers, how do we get the openness and accountability? Do we put strings on it, which the provinces detest, or do we just ask for reports every year or every quarter?
Have you thought about that part of it? It is not the first time I have heard this, but I am not sure how we go about doing it in our confederation.
Ms. Boyles: I have a couple of points. We are not informed on all the behind-the-scenes activity. However, our members say that, just as there were goals and objectives around the health accord and the early childhood accord, similar goals and mutual principles could be ascribed to post-secondary transfers. The Council of the Federation has set out underlying principles as have council ministers of education for post-secondary education in the country, which could provide a basis of agreement and then have the reporting.
They are high-level goals; they leave the flexibility for the provinces and territories to do the adaptations they need in terms of the economic and social realities of their province. However, you still get the accountability for the greater good of the country, and the economic and social future of the country.
Senator Cordy: Have you had discussions with the federal government regarding this?
Ms. Boyles: Oh, yes, for many years with the AUCC.
Mr. Davidson: This is a tough question. I would put it in a couple of contexts. Why is the federal government engaged in this area at all? If you are talking about jurisdictional purity, there would be an argument that the feds should not be there at all. We obviously do not subscribe to that view. We think it is critical to the future of Canada to have a robust higher education sector. It is important for our economic, social and demographic needs. In a competitive world, Canada is being outpaced in a number of ways. We are twentieth amongst the OECD, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, in terms of students in four-year university programs. Our participation rate is about 23 per cent. Korea has about 45 per cent.
We have some really important national challenges to meet on the higher education front. The more we can create a policy environment and discussion, where we speak about the aspirations of higher education, its value and the whole spectre of higher education, the better informed choices Canadians can make about how they want their tax dollars used.
As you consider the medium term in higher education, there is a tremendous pressure that health care spending is putting on every operating budget across the country. I saw one report recently which says that, because of the aging demographics, we are moving from 7.5 per cent of GDP, gross domestic product, for health care to 11 per cent in the next 10 years. Imagine the crowding that will put on higher education and, with respect, I am at the tail end of the baby boom. People behind me will be working harder and longer to support the quality of life that Canadians have enjoyed over the years. We need to think about health spending as a form of consumption, and higher education as an investment in the competitive strengths and the product of skills we need to have.
If we look to have a prosperous, competitive and fair society, we will have to do more on the higher education front just to sustain the quality of life that Canadians have come to expect.
Senator Cordy: You are right. We do have to invest in education for the betterment of our country.
The Deputy Chair: Are you going on to a different question because Senator Eaton would like a supplementary? Please tell me when you are done.
Senator Cordy: Before moving on, I want to say that we do have to invest in education. Maybe we have to do a better sales job to Canadians on that. I know you talked about health funding. A friend of mine was finance minister in Nova Scotia. He said every time he thought the budget was great, the health minister would come to his office and there went all his plans.
[Translation]
Mr. McRoberts: Even in the case of targeted transfers such as the federal-provincial Official Languages in Education Program, the question often arises as to whether the funding goes to the right place.
In the case of the Official Languages in Education Program, the federal government has a special constitutional responsibility toward the minority francophone communities, toward the minority anglophone communities and with regard to the matter of linguistic duality. So there are good reasons to focus on developing quite clear conditions.
[English]
Senator Eaton: To follow on Senator Cordy's question, Mr. Davidson and Mr. McRoberts: As said, we will face labour shortages due to baby boomers retiring and low birth rates, et cetera. Have we, or have your organizations, considered making higher education attractive to younger immigrants? I am looking at immigrating to a country, and I have children who are at high school level. I would like to know there are attractive programs if I immigrate to the country before I become a citizen; I want to know I will be welcomed to higher institutions. This might be attractive to people looking at where to immigrate.
Mr. Davidson: Again, this is a welcome question because one of our priority issues in the last budget cycle was to look at what more can be done to attract and recruit international undergraduate and graduate students in a very competitive environment for top talent.
In recent years, the government has done a number of important things. The changes to the immigration process have really helped in our ability to attract international students. The fact that students can work while on campus, stay beyond their graduation and, in some cases, identify themselves to be fast-tracked for citizenship are all helpful initiatives.
The next big step is to market in a more aggressive and sophisticated way. Both the federal and provincial governments, along with the higher education community, have finally determined a national brand that they wish to market internationally. What we need now are resources to do that. It is a remarkable area of consensus when you have, within the federal and all provincial governments, and with the higher education sector broadly represented, saying now is the time to do more on recruiting and attracting top talent, precisely to address the productivity issues that they have raised.
Ms. Boyles: Our association members are partners in that process. More specifically with regard to immigrants, our association has the contract with the federal government — initially for three pilot countries with offices in Guangzhou, China; Manila; and Delhi — for immigrants between the time they have been accepted to immigrate and when they move to Canada, to do advanced work with them in terms of understanding the regulatory framework and to get recognition of their credentials with a regulatory agency, college or university in the country. We have been awarded the expansion to take that to 26 more countries, priority countries from which immigrants come to Canada. We are in the process of expanding that program. If you would like more detail, my counterpart who heads up the program would be pleased to share information on that program, which has been very successful to date.
[Translation]
Mr. McRoberts: Our association is already active in the area of foreign francophone students. I have noticed an interest among students in France in coming to Canada, in starting their education in their language, but also starting their studies in English, which is offered as an option at our institutions in Ontario. However, our Director General could talk about our involvement in that undertaking.
Mr. Kervégant-Tanguy: What is very interesting is that we very recently took part in a specific mission to Paris involving a number of students from Europe.
I would like to emphasize two fundamental points on this topic, which are absolutely consistent with what Mr. Davidson said. The first is that the trademark image has been marketed by a number of players, in particular Foreign Affairs, but also CMEC, and it is true that an entire promotional effort still remains to be made.
The other point that was also a surprise — and I think we in Canada have great potential in this regard, and this was mentioned by Mr. McRoberts, among others — was building this bridge between two communities, two worlds, which are both values that many foreign students seek, but also moving toward English through a program in French. This means that this in fact goes much further. We are also an entry point more than values, which presupposes a knowledge of the Francophonie. What we have realized is that the francophone world outside Canada — in Canada, it is perhaps more or less known through its communities — is not very well known.
It is not simply a market; it is more than that. It is also a way of knowing, a way of being which constitutes Canada's specificity. The brand image is also being adapted to promise a little more with regard to the programs we are putting in place.
The other point, and I have also mentioned it to the communities, is that it is true that our institutions are pillars of the communities, that they live in a completely symbiotic relationship, as Mr. McRoberts mentioned. Consequently, with regard to immigration, this is a job to be done with CIC and with a lot of other partners around the table who can help us. And that perhaps is where we would be looking for assistance from your part, recommendations to make things smoother, simpler for the clientele wishing to come here and who, quite obviously, would meet the conditions to come to Canada.
[English]
Senator Cordy: I am interested in the Employers' Coalition for Advanced Skills that you talked about. We know there is an advanced skills crisis. We felt it during the recession, and we are going to feel it even more so when we are coming out of the recession.
I am familiar with the community colleges in Nova Scotia. They do a wonderful job. However, there is a two-year waiting list for some programs. You spoke about electrical programs. There is something wrong. We have needs to meet, and yet we are not getting the students in to help meet those needs.
What is the employers' coalition? What do they do? Do they deal with recognizing credentials or apprenticeships? Could you clarify that for me?
Ms. Boyles: The employers' coalition is the national industry associations, representing most of the industrial and health sectors in the country. It was initiated by Paul Charette, President of Bird Construction, when he was chair of the board of the Canadian Construction Association, which represents the non-residential, commercial building sector in the country.
Because of their concern, they felt other industry associations probably shared the concern, so other partners came around the table, around a shared interest. It is a coalition to speak specifically about the concerns for advanced skills, both in terms of education skills in the colleges in the country and in terms of access to applied research. They make appearances before House of Commons committees, Senate committees, et cetera. Nationally, but also provincially, their members speak about this real concern that they have. Some associations have a regional distribution and others do not.
There are 21 national associations. We can provide the list. For example, Pamela Fralick, President of the Canadian Healthcare Association, was with us this morning. She appeared at the finance committee on behalf of the industry. The list of associations also includes the Railway Association of Canada; the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada; the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, which also has a commitment to the universities; the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters; the Canadian Labour Congress; the Cement Association of Canada; the Food and Consumer Products Association of Canada; and the Retail Council of Canada.
Senator Cordy: They are advocates for advanced skills development?
Ms. Boyles: Advanced skills development, with concern about the capacity of the colleges of the country. From their perspective, on their particular skill shortages, the majority of their skill gap needs are people who are educated within the colleges and institutes.
Senator Cordy: Are they the canary in the mine to say this is what we will need?
Ms. Boyles: Exactly. For example, Pamela Fralick, from the Canadian Healthcare Association, talked this morning about the impact of the U.S. agreement on health care and that, with 32 million more people who will be covered, which is more or less the population of Canada, what will that mean in terms of the draw of health professionals from the Canadian context? What will that mean in terms of post-secondary education into the future, for both colleges and universities?
Senator Cordy: I had not thought about that. That is certainly something to think about, because we went through a lot of health care workers moving to the United States.
Mr. Davidson, I am not sure if I heard you correctly when you said that student places have increased by 40 per cent. Do you mean at universities?
Mr. Davidson: Yes. We are careful in terms of the federal-provincial jurisdictional realities at the AUCC, so we have been focused in talking with you over the last many years about the growth of research funding and the importance that has played. It is critically important. However, in fact, since 1999 there have been 40 per cent more students at universities across Canada.
Senator Cordy: Are there pockets of this?
Mr. Davidson: There is tremendous growth in the GTA, Greater Toronto Area, and Southern Ontario, but there has been growth right across the country. I know that Atlantic Canada faces particular demographic challenges, and they have met and are meeting some of that by attracting top international students. The growth is remarkable right across the country because of the recognition of the importance of a university education to a strong competitive economy and a successful career in life.
Senator Merchant: I live in Saskatchewan, so I would like to explore the challenges of the francophone community in a province like Saskatchewan. We have a very small francophone community. I think 1.2 per cent of our people are francophone. We have a vibrant francophile community. My three children went to immersion and it has been beneficial to them. However, they did not pursue their studies in French beyond high school.
When it comes to colleges in particular, what do you envisage? What would you like us to recommend for students at that point to pursue education in French, supposedly within Saskatchewan? Of course, they can always go somewhere else, if they are able. In Saskatchewan itself, if we are not able to have French colleges and institutions, do you perhaps think we could have instructors offer these courses in French? Is that viable because of our small population? Do you think there would be a demand for these courses in French so that we could recommend that perhaps our own institutions could offer some courses in French? How many students would we need to make this viable? Would we be able to get instructors to come out West to do this?
Mr. McRoberts: Are you talking specifically about colleges, or universities and colleges?
Senator Merchant: Colleges specifically, because we do have some possibilities for universities, but not for colleges.
Mr. McRoberts: In the case of universities for Saskatchewan, there is the Institut Français at the University of Regina, and it provides some support for francophone students. There would be a role for expanding the programming that they can offer.
It is important that francophone students —
[Translation]
It is important that francophone and francophile students have the opportunity to study at an institution that is francophone too. Giving two or three courses in French at an anglophone institution does not offer the same experience or opportunity at all. These students have to have the opportunity to live in French and to have francophone colleagues.
So at the university level, I believe the Institut français offers the best opportunity.
[English]
Senator Merchant: That is fine for universities but when it comes to colleges, would there be enough of a demand for us to be able to recommend that we set it up? A total French immersion environment would be ideal because I know from my own experience, if I had the opportunity to speak French in Saskatchewan, my French would be a lot better than it is. I understand French very well, but I cannot always express myself in French. Ideally, yes, it would be nice to have the whole institution and environment in French. As a recommendation for provinces like mine, is it at all acceptable to you, or at all possible, to just offer some skills to those students, offer their skills in French, as a compromise or as a way of at least giving an opportunity for francophones and francophiles to pursue a trade, not necessarily a university education but a college education in French?
Mr. McRoberts: I will defer to my colleague.
Ms. Boyles: Saskatchewan does use the brokerage approach to bring courses and programs from the colleges and universities in Saskatchewan out to the rural and remote areas. There is a community process of identifying which courses or programs would be viable, where you would have enough students in a particular community to broker those programs out. I presume you could do it within Saskatchewan from the francophones, from the institute.
One approach used in B.C. is a similar institution in southern B.C. that is like an unincorporated francophone college, which partners with the public mainstream colleges. In Prince George, for example, they had one example that I know of. They really wanted to have a program offered over a condensed period of time for early childhood educators in French. The College of New Caledonia in Prince George then partnered with the francophone institution in southern B.C. and brokered it on a condensed framework for a particular group of students. You need to have enough students to make that viable, and because of the federal responsibility relative to francophones outside of Quebec on the minority language, then it would be part of the Saskatchewan-federal agreement on how some funding mechanisms could be put in place to make that possible.
Senator Merchant: The problem is that it is a double-edged sword. In order to have demand for these programs, you have to have these programs available. There will not to be any demand if the program is not available. I do not know how you can approach it, what we can recommend, how we can look at it.
[Translation]
Mr. Kervégant-Tanguy: That is precisely the fundamental issue. You mentioned supply and demand, and it is true that if there is no supply, there will probably be people prepared to demand it, but who will not dare to do so. That is the first point.
I am not just talking about the move from Grade 12 to university; it is by starting much younger, at the primary and secondary levels, which you also mentioned. I think that the typical example of the Institut Français is a very good one and a very good approach because they are very much associated with the community — we come back to the community — which makes it possible to make the language live so we can encourage people to think in French. It also helps people who probably come from immersion programs.
The goal of immersion today, after 37 years of a very good project — and I think this is now what is being sought by the children and the anglophone parents who put their children in French immersion — is to be able to think completely and to be able to take university courses in French.
Because francophone parents ask themselves the question: what will our children do if we put them in a francophone academic environment after Grade 12? And what offers will be available to them? That is where we see the necessary investment, probably by the province but also by the federal government, to offer a minimum number of courses. What is that minimum? What kind of courses will they be?
And the second factor is critical mass. And here we cannot ask how many students are required by class to make this viable. I do not know whether this is viable at the outset, but, in any case, I think it is priming the pump. Are these answers? I do not know, but this is the issue we encounter. If the community is strong, things are possible. And I believe that is also the case for our universities? This has been their luck for a great many years.
[English]
Senator Seidman: Thank you for coming to discuss these issues with us this afternoon. I would like to explore the subject of funding and the role of tuition fees in universities and colleges.
If I look at the most recent Statistics Canada data, I see that approximately 60 per cent of university research expenditures are government funded, and approximately two-thirds of that is from the federal government. Then, if I look at the operating expenditures, I see that governments contribute about twice that of tuition.
I am struggling here. Maybe this is more of a philosophical question to all of you. What do you see as the role of tuition fees in funding universities and colleges? I preface my question to you by telling you that, if I think about Quebec, for example, we have community colleges that have virtually no tuition, and we have universities that probably have the lowest tuition in the country.
Ms. Boyles: Our position is that there is a shared responsibility between the individual, society and the institution. In general, tuition fees will vary between 20 per cent and 30 per cent, getting closer to the 30 per cent of the actual costs at this point in time.
Our premise and position is that there should be full grants for low-income, disadvantaged students because we know that, if they can get support for participating in post-secondary education, particularly in the first two years, then they will continue through to the end, but that is a shared responsibility.
Within Quebec and within the Cegeps, there are certainly other add-on fees that perhaps in other provinces are included in the core operational costs. Lab fees, et cetera, might be within the core tuition in another jurisdiction. From what our members are telling us, however, it is not quite as free with some of the political statements that are said about it.
Senator Seidman: I think you are quite right. There are a lot of add-on fees; that is quite true.
Mr. Davidson: I will certainly participate in this. It is a shame we are near the end of discussion because it is important. It plays out differently across the country and each jurisdiction has wrestled with it in different ways. We are intrigued about the discussions now in Quebec after many decades of tuition fees being frozen. That has certainly enabled and facilitated accessibility. However, real trade-offs have been made in terms of the total amount of funding available to support the higher education system. I think it is a useful debate to be having as Quebec considers the role of higher education in its development going forward.
In jurisdictions where tuition fees have increased over time, careful and good work has been done, both by governments and institutions, to ensure there are other ways of achieving accessibility. That includes the universities themselves contributing in terms of scholarships and other forms of support to students. It includes the combination of federal and provincial mechanisms that provide additional support.
There is a view that the net costs, even in those jurisdictions where tuition fees have increased over the last decade — that is, after you have taken out the tax changes that have been made and the opportunities for bursaries and scholarships — are similar to where they were before the tuition increased. It is a terrain that needs to be considered carefully. Certainly, tuition plays an important part of the financing of universities. Universities take it seriously to ensure that they can remain accessible and deliver a high-quality educational experience.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator Keon: Mr. Davidson, you opened this earlier and Senator Seidman popped the question to you, but this is something that requires careful study because I think it is really hurting our Canadian universities.
As you said, we are not educating enough young people. There is another phenomenon, namely, that young people, if they feel they want to be the very best in education, tend to leave the country. We have excellent education facilities here in Canada. The University of Toronto has the largest medical school in the world. Yet, people will leave Toronto after their undergraduate degrees and go to Oxford, or to Harvard, or you name it, and pay big bucks. I did it myself. Having cycled through three Canadian universities, I went south for the icing on the cake. All three of my children did it. One went to Oxford; the two boys went to the U.S. They had their Master's degrees before they left, however.
I want to make another point: Two of them did not come back. The third one would not have come back had he not fallen in love and married someone in Canada who was tied to Canada.
I think the universities really need some salesmen. They are not presenting themselves at all as good as they are. When I was young, I could have stayed in university forever. It was the most exciting thing in my life as I moved from one university to another, until my wife refused to keep me any longer. I probably would still be there.
Somehow, we must get the message out, particularly to young males, about how exciting it is to be in university — especially when you are doing something that is leading edge in university. We do not do that in Canada. We look at the way the Americans sell their Ivy League schools or their West Coast schools and the way that the Brits sell Oxford and Cambridge. We have wonderful schools. McGill is a miracle for what it has gone through and it is still one of the best universities in the world. No one is saying that, though. How are you going to get that message out? That is an easy question, is it not?
Senator Champagne: We will hire you, senator.
Mr. Davidson: I was going to suggest that you may have more time shortly. You are a wonderful champion and ambassador for everything about higher education in this country. I do not think we should be embarrassed about people going overseas for their education. That is part of being a global citizen in the 21st century. The trick is to ensure that they come back. Strides have been made in the last decade — for example, the creation of the Canada Research Chairs did reverse the brain drain. We need to point to that and ensure people know there is a place for people in Canada and you can be the best in the world in Canada. We need to do more, both as Canadians and as a higher education sector in Canada, to be unashamedly proud of the success of this system — not only in terms of academic excellence but also in terms of accessibility.
The development of universities post-war in Canada has enabled Canadians from all walks of life to become world leaders. If you speak to people who were involved in the creation of the University of Moncton and Laurentian University or in the creation of Thompson Rivers University — not always seen amongst the top in the world — you would realize how those institutions have an effect on the lives of individuals and communities and create a pathway to global excellence. I completely agree that we must set ambitious goals going forward.
That is part of what I find so important about the work you are doing. It has been a long time since a group of people with time, intellect and capacity has put audacious goals in front of all of us, federal and provincial governments, universities and colleges, the whole sector; we need to be inspirational again.
Senator Eaton was asking about the immigration side. I mentioned this in October. There are only 2,800 students from India studying in Canada; there are 28,000 studying in Australia; and there are 28,000 studying in the U.K. If we think of where the world is going in the 21st century, we need to be more engaged with the world. We need to have audacious goals and to expect our students to be able to travel the country and travel the world and come back and have a range of opportunities. From undergraduate through to graduate, the opportunities that exist in Canada now are good. The federal government announced post-doctorates this spring. This is an important initiative to say that you can be the world's best right here in Canada.
I would not be embarrassed for a minute to say, "I went away." That is great and we are delighted that you came back.
Ms. Boyles: Our institutions are also proud but many call themselves grade schools for some of the universities. The fastest growing numbers of registrants in the college system in Canada are among university grads. It is a multi-dimensional process. Eighty of our member institutions also offer degrees, some as university colleges but others like Humber, SIAST, Saskatchewan Institute of Applied Science and Technology, or other institutions in the country.
In picking up on the Indian students, there is a lack of data on colleges in this country. Federal departments, such as Statistics Canada and HRSDC, invest way more in data on our university counterparts, which is great, but the lack of information on the college system is a policy gap in the country. For example, if we use the India example of 2,800 Indian students, because of a new pilot program with Citizenship and Immigration Canada, CIC, we know we just brought 1,300 Indian students this past year to Centennial College in Toronto alone. That partnership with CIC to accelerate the visa processing for international students is making a dramatic difference. We are expanding that to China, as well.
The other thing is Canada's colleges and institutes are better known in the international domain in terms of helping to establish college systems in Jordan, Vietnam, China, Senegal, Mali, Bolivia and Chile. It is one of the exports of the Canadian capacity that is little known. The international globalization dimension is critical. Most young people being educated now — at least one in nine — will be working with a company or organization that will have an international dimension, and so they need that globalized experience.
Mr. McRoberts: There is a lot to be said for going away at some point and doing university studies in other countries. Canadians do come home. I came home. We have hired more than 50 people over the last 10 years who are primary Canadian who have gone to Harvard, Oxford, U.S.C. and Yale and have come home. There is an appeal to coming back to Canada. Canada has a lot to offer relative to other settings. I would not despair of the situation.
Senator Keon: I did not mean to indicate that. If I did, I will correct it because this is a live broadcast. I am a great believer in cross-fertilization. From my own experience as a teacher, I delighted in having foreign students with me. I learned more from them than they learned from me.
Senator Martin: My one quick follow-up question was to ask how many Indian students are here versus in Australia or the United States. What are some of the strategies they are using? Perhaps we could then look at ways that Canada can put our stamp on it.
I absolutely agree with you that we have an education system that can compare to any other jurisdiction. If we speak with some of the international education representatives who do go abroad, I think the interesting challenge for Canada is that we have the individual school districts and provinces that often go to these fairs. Is there a national brand or approach? Is that the kind of coordination we could have?
However, it would be beneficial to look at what the other countries are doing and to examine those strategies to see what we can do. I agree with everything you say and it has been a most interesting discussion today.
Mr. Davidson: I would be happy to follow up privately but I will say, first, that Australia has about a 15-year head start in terms of universities and the higher education community working together. We are now doing that, and doing so effectively. Second, they addressed immigration issues and put architecture in place to make it work. Third, they put resources behind it. They are spending $20 million a year in marketing their university experience. Canada is spending $1 million a year. We have member institutions spending more than the Government of Canada to market to international students.
We look to you and your report to encourage a more robust approach. We are ready with a national brand, with a consortium approach to higher education, and with a huge market opportunity to pursue.
Senator Champagne: I spent most of my last 40 years in the world of classical music. If my husband were here today, he would tell you that 50 or 60 years ago, all our talented young musicians would go to Europe, study there, starve there for three to six years, and then come back to Canada.
He would ask why we send them again to Europe. We were taught all there was to learn and we can teach it in Canada. Why spend the money to send them to Europe again? Now we have some young students from Europe who come here to study music.
I guess we are getting there. Thank you, Senator Keon. That was a comment based on your comments.
The Deputy Chair: With the assembly we have here today, I would love to be able to take a lot of time to discuss this issue with you. You are people who not only have experience but you have been, and are, running organizations, so you know the reality as well as the political philosophies and enthusiasms that surround the issue of post-secondary education.
I will limit my questions to two. You have all spoken or touched on the issue of the transfer of funding from federal treasuries to provincial systems, and the lack of transparency within that in terms of how money flows through to education, if it does in the appropriate ways, or the ways it was originally intended when appropriations were made at the federal budget level. This is tied up in the whole issue of the provincial responsibility for education, and the federal attempts to develop a national level of opportunity and quality by transferring funds to the province from the federal treasury.
One of the aspects of today's session is the issue of funding for research and development within universities. I have always found it interesting that the provinces do not seem to have any difficulty at all with the idea that the federal government will create, first, the granting agencies that have been in operation for a very long time and, more recently, a number of highly successful funding operations such as the CFI and other organizations, which are giving substantial amounts of money to institutions in the provinces with regard to R&D. That really goes toward the post-graduate education and other forms of education. The provinces do not seem to have any difficulty with that kind of situation.
Is there anything within that manner of operation that could lead us into a new dimension with regard to the way in which education funding gets transferred from the federal treasury to the provinces?
Mr. Davidson: I will jump in and others may want to add their comments.
The federal government has played a leadership role and it has reinvigorated the research agenda in Canada over the last 15 years. It has also established mechanisms through the granting councils that are internationally viewed as excellent. They are peer reviewed. They are a foundation to our research and development success.
Interestingly, in the interval, a number of provinces have followed suit. Within the Government of Quebec, there is a robust research granting council mechanism and funds are flowing that, in some ways, match and contribute to the federal leadership and address other priorities in other ways. Ontario has a similar research program now for which we all pushed to increase support.
To come to your broader question, we are a few years away from re-negotiating what the transfer mechanism could and should be. It is critically important to have the discussion about the importance of higher education in light of competing pressures. We are already told about the serious fiscal situation Canada is in. That is true. However, compared to other jurisdictions, we have the fiscal capacity to make strategic choices. Is Canada prepared to make strategic choices, both at the federal and provincial levels?
In some ways, I am "agnostic" about what the final mechanism is, because in the history of federal-provincial relations in Canada, sometimes it is more hands-on and sometimes more hands-off. Having a shared vision of what we are trying to achieve is most important, as is being able to work towards that vision.
Ms. Boyles: There are also some lessons learned in the recent knowledge infrastructure program, where the federal government identified the core priorities and what they were actually driving to achieve, and then the provinces came in as partners because they wanted the money. In some cases, that offset some of their other investments. It was a collaborative approach that was able to be mobilized very quickly with the institutions. There are knots on it, but it is an area worth looking at in terms of lessons learned.
In terms of jurisdiction, the federal government has jurisdictional responsibility in a number of areas relative to post-secondary education. Anything under international Law of the Sea, broadcasting, aviation, et cetera, the standards, certification processes and educational curricular content is driven by the federal government, either under the constitutional responsibility or under international law.
Third, it is not just post-secondary education transfers where the federal government invests in post-secondary education in the country, or the research money, and certainly research for colleges is critically important. We did get a doubling of our small amount in the college and community innovation program this year. It is also in the programs through a number of other mechanisms, such as the First Nations funding mechanism and the labour market development agreements, which are equally complex. It is devolved to the provinces, but there are accountability mechanisms within the legislative frameworks for the labour market development and labour market partners agreements that the provinces have agreed to.
It makes it more complex when trying to do pan-Canadian planning with industry on how a province is then using the money, but the accountability and transparency mechanisms are stronger there. They are not as good as they could be, but they are stronger there than they are on the post-secondary transfer question, so there are some lessons there. Other areas, like national defence, purchase a lot of training from the colleges and institutes. Corrections Canada purchases education from us as well.
The Deputy Chair: The indirect costs of research, I would think, would be one area where it comes close to getting into the idea of jurisdiction.
My second question goes to the issue of access at the college and undergraduate levels. One of the concepts that has been talked about over time, but of which we have heard very little in our hearings to this point, is the idea of transferring government support for undergraduate and college education directly to the student, through giving the government subsidy grant in that sense, directly to the student and allowing him or her to make the choice of where they go with it.
You have all talked about the difficulty in matching. Which comes first? Do you make something available or do you try to find a demand such as in minority education areas, all the way through to new development, particularly at the college level and, to a substantial degree, at the university level?
I want to put the question directly to you: Do you see a potential or are you in favour of the idea of funding the student, and then having the student choose the institution to which he or she will go?
Ms. Boyles: We have a blend of that right now in our institutions. About 50 per cent of the institutional budgets come through the core funding mechanism, which will include the post-secondary education transfer. The other portion of the programs comes through purchase of individual seats, either by a student, in some provinces, using a quasi-voucher process, and in other cases where there is the discussion of which programs and where.
I was president of a college that was pretty much entrepreneurial. Only about 25 per cent of our monies came through that core mechanism. It is incredibly difficult for an institution and their economic development partners to do the strategies around which programs are strategically needed for their community and for the future of their community, and knowing that the decision points on how that program will be funded rests with an individual who may or may not choose to go into the programs that are needed for the economic and social success of the country.
Mr. McRoberts: As I understand it, you are raising the prospect of the federal government directly funding students, providing vouchers.
The Deputy Chair: Federal and provincial governments would both have a role, in other words, the amount of taxpayers' money, whether provincial or federal, that goes directly into the undergraduate cost. Not so much the infrastructure and deferred maintenance and all of that, but when you break down the cost of university education, you get direct post-secondary education grants, usually from the provinces. Whether that money comes from the federal transfer or the provincial treasury, those monies go to providing the institution's capability of delivering its programs, largely at the undergraduate level, seeing some or all of that taxpayer money — which could be counted as supporting the undergraduate education — going as a direct grant to the individual student so that they would choose which institution to take that chit to.
Mr. McRoberts: This presumably would be justified under the federal spending power that the Queen can make gifts for any purpose.
The Deputy Chair: Let us not worry how we work out the federal-provincial aspect. I want to come to the core issue, the idea of funding a student versus funding the institution directly through taxpayer funding.
Mr. McRoberts: As I recall, this was discussed under the Trudeau regime, and it did not happen even under the Trudeau government. I think this would be seen as quite provocative, to become so directly involved in funding students, with the prospect perhaps of funding students differently depending on which program they go into. What counts is to have a national vision that the governments can agree upon, and then the mechanism becomes secondary.
The Deputy Chair: I know all the background to this. I want to hear your views, not the views of Trudeau or anyone else.
Mr. McRoberts: I just do not think it is viable.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. That is where I am going with this.
Mr. Davidson: I would pick up on the point of Mr. McRoberts. Even if it were appealing, the viability of it would be a real challenge.
The other point I would make is that community colleges and universities are very market driven, frankly. They do respond to the needs and interests of students and of the economy.
With a voucher system, you can say, "Let the students vote with their feet." They are voting with their feet. In some cases they are choosing to leave Canada, and we want to do something to change that. In some cases they are choosing to pursue certain institutions over others. The market is already there without using a voucher or chit system, as you have suggested.
You also floated the question of indirect costs. You will notice I have been careful not to use that phrase today, until now. Right now, the indirect costs of research are funded at a rate of about 23 per cent in Canada. The international standard is about 40 per cent to 80 per cent. There is a big gap there. It is worth about $325 million a year. If the federal government were to choose to fully fund the cost of research, that would free up $325 million in universities across the country that could go from the research enterprise to the undergraduate teaching enterprise. There is some thought to be given to the federal government recognizing the full cost of research to enable the universities to reapply the funds that they have been cross-subsidizing from the teaching experience over to the research side.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. I did want to hear your direct views. I am not at all surprised by what I heard, but I wanted to get on the record what your views would be with regard to the question of whether or not you allow the student to make the choice.
We are very near our time. We have had a very good session today. Unless I see a real desire for one last question from my colleagues, I want to take this opportunity, on behalf of the committee, to thank you for a thorough discussion today and for the frankness of your answers in the various areas. We covered quite a range of issues, from the broad spectrum of post-secondary education, to the college system, through to the university and into the research area.
I want to thank you all for taking the time to come and meet with us today. Your comments have been very helpful to the committee. I declare the committee ended.
(The committee adjourned.)