Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs,
Science and Technology
Subcommittee on Post-Secondary education
Issue 3 - Evidence - November 26 Meeting
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 26, 1996
The Subcommittee on Post-Secondary education of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, met this day at 7:30 p.m. to continue its inquiry into the state of Post-Secondary education in Canada.
Senator M. Lorne Bonnell (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, this evening we will continue our study into Post-Secondary education. Our first witnesses this evening are from the National Graduate Council. Welcome. Please introduce yourselves and proceed with your presentation.
Mr. Steve Wilson, Chairperson, National Graduate Council: I am a fourth-year Ph.D. candidate in the Faculty of Agricultural Sciences at the University of British Columbia.
Ms Stephannie Roy, Secretary-Treasurer, National Graduate Council: I am a first-year Ph.D. student in sociology and EDUCATION at the University of Toronto.
Ms Tracey Henry, National Executive Representative, National Graduate Council: Currently, I am doing my Master's degree in biochemistry at the University of Guelph.
Mr. Wilson: Because graduate students are sometimes a mysterious group of people in Canada, I thought I would start by taking a few minutes to describe who we are and how we differ from other students you may see with more regularity.
As you can probably tell, graduate students are usually a little older because we spend two to three times as much time in Post-Secondary education as do undergraduates. Because we are older, we are more likely to have some family responsibilities and to be independent from our parents.
One thing that is forgotten is that we attend school 12 months a year. There are no summer breaks and no summer jobs for graduate students.
Many of the issues affecting undergraduates, such as the issue of student aid, also affect graduate students. They have a far greater impact on graduate students.
As well, we are more mobile than many other students. We are more likely to cross provincial boundaries and national boundaries in order to get our EDUCATION because we are usually closely tied to certain people in certain fields we want to work with. For that reason, we are very sensitive to the federal role in Post-Secondary education and very tied to the federal commitment. We take a national perspective to the kinds of work that we want to accomplish.
The other equally unique fact about graduate students is that we are not just students; we are also teachers and researchers. Our research is most important to us in our day-to-day work, and many of us hope to carry out research aimed towards an eventual career once we finally graduate. It is that research role that I would like to concentrate on this evening.
We certainly recognize the leadership role the federal government has taken in developing a culture of research and development in Canada. We strongly support the tradition for pure and applied research and development through the federal granting councils, that is, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and the Medical Research Council. They form the core of what we see as driving the commitment of the federal government to research and development in our the country.
Our granting councils are well respected around the world. Graduate students often travel to conferences in other countries. I have personally been approached many times on matters concerning the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council which has supported my work. Everyone I speak to is aware of our granting council and is extremely pleased with the kind of work done with the grants that come through the council.
Canadians should be especially proud of the work the granting councils do. They are an extremely good investment for Canadians. Canadians get tremendous value for their dollar.
Over 96 per cent of the annual budget of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council goes directly to grants and fellowships for researchers and scholarships for graduate students. This very small overhead can only be accomplished through the participation of literally hundreds of academics from all across the country who participate in the council's annual activities. This pure process, along with minimal political interference, generates excellence in the kind of research accomplished here in Canada. We have a tremendous amount to be proud of.
The downside is that we are concerned about the recent cuts to the granting councils, although we understand that they have not been cut as much as the other aspects of the industry portfolio, for instance, the NSERC and the SSHRC. Since there is so little overhead in these budgets, clearly, any small decrease has some immediate impact on the people who work in the universities.
Any new moneys that have become available in the last 10 to 15 years have largely been directed at specifically targeted funds in programs rather than going into the core operating budgets of these granting councils. We understand the spirit of these and strongly support a number of them that work towards important social goals. An excellent example is the National Network for Environments and Women which is examining the link between the environment, in the broad sense, and women's health. It is a national network bringing together researchers from across the country in a collaborative effort to work towards a common social issue.
We have concerns about some of the other partnerships that the government is encouraging, either through directed program funds or through the indirect effect of cuts to Post-Secondary education. Our concerns stem both from the effect on graduate students and also the effect on the broader community.
We believe that collaborating with private partners in research should be encouraged where the research outcomes are in the public interest and where research results are freely available to the public.
An example of this kind of research is an NSERC strategic grant which examines the impacts of industrial forestry practices on wildlife populations in the interior of British Columbia. Clearly, this kind of research is of great public concern, and the results of that research will be available to all of us. We are very pleased with those kinds of research efforts.
The partnerships we are concerned about, though, are partnerships which result in contracts and which give partial or complete control of research results to private interests. The most obvious effect of this on graduate students is where an outside funding agency controls what research is done and controls, to some extent, the publication of research results.
We believe that one of the most important aspects of the training of young researchers is the ability of a person to formulate their own research questions and to carry out the research. It is critical to be able to develop an independent research program.
The delay in publication which sometimes accompanies private contracts can also hurt graduate students because they are unable to disseminate the research results in a timely fashion to the academic community. Certainly, independence from both corporate and political influence is the cornerstone of our universities. We must ensure that the next generation of researchers is prepared to continue that tradition.
Of course, these are symptoms of a certain broader issue, because some sectors of our society are expressing impatience with Canada's R&D effort. There is an increasing call for short-term, immediate and measurable research outcomes. It is imperative that the federal government, in addition to the academic community -- because we certainly have a responsibility in this as well -- take a leadership role in resisting this change in focus from a long-term outlook on research to more short-term, outcome-oriented work. Certainly, the most successful economies in the world understand the value in pure, basic and long-term research. It is certainly critical for Canada, if it is to succeed as a world leader in social and economic development, to make that same recognition.
With that in mind, we have a number of suggestions. First, we feel we need to develop some criteria that governs private sector involvement in research in our public institutions. We must do this in a way which does not compromise academic freedom of individual researchers and does not affect institutional autonomy, which are obviously important cornerstones of our universities.
The graduate student community is willing to work with the federal government to raise the profile of federal investment in research and development. There are a number of things we can do in that vein, as well as communicate the critical importance of research to Canadian society.
We strongly support the action agenda prepared by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, and the National Consortium of National EDUCATION Societies which call for a renewed investment in Canada's research structure. We are particularly intrigued by the call for community research shops as an innovative way to bring research closer to our communities.
Finally, we would resist any further rposttions in the core operating budgets of the federal granting councils and any calls to direct their core funds to other initiatives.
We would be pleased to answer any questions.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. I am pleased to have you participate in this discussion of higher EDUCATION in Canada because you are in a position to know in which direction we should be going.
Does your council have any data concerning the employment levels of graduate students in the humanities and social sciences versus engineering and science?
Mr. Wilson: As a comparison, by discipline, we do have some information. For example, we know that, for graduates who have been supported by federal grants in the sciences, unemployment rates are very low. Generally, we do not have data on the kinds of employment they have found. We do not know whether they are in their chosen field, but we do know that unemployment rates are very low.
The National Sciences and Engineering Research Council has done surveys of their former grant scholarship holders, but we do not have that for the social sciences. I do not think a survey of that has been done.
The Chairman: Given the lack of hiring of professors for Canadian universities, where do most of the doctoral degree students in the humanities and sciences find employment? Are there enough positions of employment for them?
Ms Roy: There is not enough employment for graduates in the humanities and social sciences. Obviously, people are finding work, because they have to find jobs. That is reflected in the employment figures, but it hides the fact that they are not always working in their chosen field.
Certainly, though, they are contributing their knowledge to the fields they enter. It is very difficult to find a job for those students in the social sciences and humanities because of the move we have towards technology as the big employer. Certainly, graduates are working in many fields, especially in EDUCATION and some of the more applied disciplines. As to pure research, some are working as sessional lecturers at universities, but the pay is very low. Many hope to obtain university jobs in the future and are working towards that, even though they presently have other positions.
The Chairman: One of the criticisms I hear about the graduate students in the humanities who attend universities to teach is that they do not know how to teach. Do they ever have any teacher training? They may be well-postated but they do not know how to impart their knowledge. Do you know anything about that?
Ms Roy: Some universities have actually made a strong effort to train Ph.D. students to teach, but others have not. In my case at the University of Toronto, we can take optional teaching courses. However, those are being cut back or we are being asked to pay huge fees for them. Unfortunately, the university is moving away from that trend.
The National Graduate Council is also critical of the fact that part of our graduate training does not include the aspect of teacher training. We have been working towards having that extra dimension added to our graduate EDUCATION. The universities have been somewhat lax in giving us that portion. I am in EDUCATION, so my situation is different. There has been a movement away from providing those courses, often because of cost cutting.
The Chairman: Are you a teacher?
Ms Roy: I have taught. I am beginning my Ph.D. I am not ready to teach yet, but I was a teaching assistant at Lakehead University. Those skills are being developed. I will be taking the course at the University of Toronto to continue my training in that regard.
The Chairman: But you have not taken teacher's training as such?
Ms Roy: No, I have not. University teaching is different from other teacher training. There are aspects of it that will come from being in the classroom, which is what I am doing now.
Teacher training is somewhat different at this level, and it will develop. There are also mentoring opportunities with my professors that will give me an opportunity to improve my teaching skills. That has also been happening during the course of study for my master's degree.
The Chairman: Do you believe that all the teachers who taught you were good teachers? They may good professors and nice people. They may be also smart and know what they are doing, but do they know how to teach?
Ms Roy: I have had some excellent teachers. That is part of my reason for pursuing a Ph.D. Academically, I have been encouraged to excel. I have been encouraged to go on, and some of my teachers fostered that. I cannot say they were all wonderful -- in fact, some have not been very good -- but, on the whole, I have had excellent teachers in graduate EDUCATION, and I have benefited from that experience.
I feel that I have developed as a researcher and as a student because of the opportunities I have had, and the teachers and the academics with whom I have been able to work.
The Chairman: You have gained a lot of knowledge and experience at university, but thinking back to some of your grade school teachers, were they good teachers?
Ms Roy: Yes.
The Chairman: When you get to the point where you are receiving a salary appropriate for someone with a Ph.D., you should be capable of teaching students. If teachers do not have any methods, or motivations, or other tools they can use to encourage students to learn, then EDUCATION is wasted on the teaching profession. You might be a great scientist, a great humanitarian and a great philosopher, but if you cannot impart that knowledge to a student in such a way that he will retain the information, then you are not a good teacher.
I was in university for about five years before I knew how to remember information. I had to teach myself how to do that. Sometimes I think we should be teaching students how to learn and how to remember. Will you learn how to do that in your teachers' training?
Ms Roy: That is part of it. Someone once said that, if you instill a love of learning, then learning will happen. You instill that in the classroom. I intend to develop as a teacher through research, learning how to do research and wanting to disseminate that knowledge to others, as well as by participating in the academic community.
What you are saying is valuable. I was not always successful because some teachers were not good at that. I have learned from that as well. The process of pursuing EDUCATION is the process of becoming a teacher.
That is only one aspect of it. I must develop the skills to gain the knowledge to transmit to these students as well. I would not want to keep reading information and just regurgitate it to my students. I must be able to develop new skills and new perspectives and to be critical. I must continually review everything I do to build that love of learning.
Senator Andreychuk: Mr. Wilson, I wish to return to your concerns about research and private industry. Perhaps you could elaborate on some of those points for me.
You said you were satisfied that the granting councils gave a measure of freedom, that they were pure evaluation and that, on the whole, the process is successful. I agree with your caution that cutbacks are not the most appropriate decision. While they were less in this field than in other places, surely this is an area in which we should have growth if we care about our future at all. You might want to elaborate on that.
You said that the research that is tied to private industry comes with too many strings attached. According to the National Graduate Council, does this research come mainly through the granting councils, or is this independently controlled by universities, faculties or elsewhere? In other words, at what level is the scrutiny to accept that kind of research with the ties? Do you have any suggestions on how it can be better handled, given that that appears to be the growth area in a shrinking economy?
Mr. Wilson: There are two aspects. Moneys are being accepted from private industry which is scrutinized at the level of the universities through their own policies and through offices of industrial liaison which are now becoming quite common on Canadian campuses. Because the universities are squeezed, of course they feel some pressure to accept this money. That is an issue in itself. Where do you draw the line as far as participation by private industry? That is extremely inconsistent across universities.
Industry Canada, for example, with its granting councils, attempts to use federal granting dollars to leverage private dollars, to increase the amount of money available for research. While this does have positive aspects -- obviously more money available and also training of individuals -- often the private money that is leveraged comes with strings attached. Of course, that must still go through the university's policies on private participation.
There is pressure created as a result of those programs.
Senator Andreychuk: I was interested in the aspect of independence of research. Are you saying that the leverage comes in what you can research and how it can be published, or is it in the actual research?
Mr. Wilson: It is primarily in setting the parameters for what can be researched. Often, it creates pressure to produce toward the directed research goal rather than to create new knowledge. That is the primary issue for graduate students. Some graduate students feel that they are doing a lot of work, but they are not getting a sense of whether they are developing as independent researchers because so many things are being controlled from the outside. That is not consistent across all disciplines. It is certainly far more common in the biomedical field, for instance. In many of the more technical, lab-oriented disciplines there is that pressure. Obviously, it is not as great in some of the social sciences.
Another pressure is the delay in publication time, which is often temporary, but for a graduate student, whose career is quite short, even short delays can have impacts.
Senator Andreychuk: I thought most universities had guidelines for the "independence" of the research; in other words, to what extent you are free to pursue the research once you are given the topic. You are saying that is not where the problem lies, that the problem is at the front end when they negotiate the contract, when your possibilities for research are limited.
Mr. Wilson: That is right. Also, some of the policies specifically exclude contractual research. The universities are saying, "We have this policy about the independence of research but we reserve the right to negotiate contracts to use university resources, which falls outside of that policy."
Senator Andreychuk: Is that universal?
Mr. Wilson: It is not universal. Institutional autonomy ensures that we have as many policies as we have universities.
Senator Forest: Happily, I was involved with universities in the days when there was money. I have since been concerned that perhaps we have lost a generation of scholars, particularly in the social sciences and humanities. I maintain that no university becomes a great university until it pays as much attention to that aspect of EDUCATION as it does to the professional schools.
As dollars became more scarce, we knew that contracts were being let out to private industry, which did impinge upon the autonomy of the university and the freedom of the researchers. Of course, whoever pays the piper calls the tune. Do you think that has yet reached the point where it is a significant negative factor?
My second question is more specific. It is about community research shops; particularly, what are they?
Ms Henry: On your first question, this is definitely becoming a serious issue. I am in biochemistry. There is a high percentage of researchers in our department who have modified their research course to some extent. Obviously, you do not completely switch disciplines, but their research course has been modified to some extent.
One of the major changes is that the goals become far more short term because the contract is for only one or two years. Because there is no long-term perspective, the course of the research can become somewhat disjointed.
That is certainly becoming an issue. The vast majority of researchers in my department are looking into private sector contracts as a result of cutbacks from NSERC and MRC funding.
One of the major concerns is that research which does not have an obvious direct commercial or corporate application will not be funded. Research which has those kinds of obvious benefits will clearly get funding through the private sector, and perhaps additional funding through the public sector with these matching programs. However, public-private matching programs which leverage public sector work pull money out of public funds which go directly to more basic research which does not have the obvious applications. That is a major issue, but its ramifications may not be seen for 10 or 15 years.
Mr. Wilson: The community research shop is an idea which I believe started in the Netherlands. It is, basically, a way to bring the ivory tower a little closer to the community in which it belongs and which it serves. The idea is to be able to tap into the expertise of the university to provide solutions for some of the issues which communities face.
We have a school of community and regional planning at the University of British Columbia. Obviously, with what has been happening in the Lower Mainland in the last 10 years, there are all kinds of opportunities for using that expertise to solve immediate problems within the community. It is a tremendous way to build links and let the community understand the value. It is also a way of generating some opportunities for our graduates. They establish links which may lead to jobs or self-employment opportunities.
[Translation]
Senator Losier-Cool: You mentioned research carried out by the community, by the private sector or, as Senator Andreychuk said, by industry. I would like to focus on the issue of international studies.
Is the purpose of your research to examine possible international or foreign markets, or in fact to prepare Canadians for these international markets?
Has your research indicated that Canadian university students are well prepared to tackle international or foreign markets?
[English]
Ms Roy: Are you asking if we have been trained to make international links and to be leaders in the community?
Senator Losier-Cool: I am asking if you have research which indicates that Canadian students are well prepared for the international market; or are they well prepared?
[Translation]
Are they well thought of? Are they able to work in these markets?
[English]
Ms Roy: I recently attended a conference on internationalization held by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. It was expressed by some in attendance that it is important to have an internationally focused student body and that graduates not be involved. It was felt that the universities are there to find out ways to do that.
Students themselves were saying that the opportunities to learn another language, to study abroad or to gain international links are still in the low range. Part of that is because of the slowness of universities in finding these programs and building links and partnerships with other universities in other countries. This conference was working on strategies to start this process so that students have a more global perspective.
As far as graduate students are concerned, I think they have much more of an international focus. We do not look just at what Canadians are doing. We look at what the community is doing and what is available. I have spoken with people in England and the United States about my research. We are people who attend conferences which are often international in scope. We talk about our opportunities and our research.
Graduate students are in a good position to do this. However, I think there is some work that could be done around giving us more international experience. It is expensive to do some of these things. Therefore, good student support is necessary.
We are in a good position. The universities are certainly committed to working toward making this a better situation. We are well on our way.
Senator Losier-Cool: Does your council represent students from every province in Canada?
Mr. Wilson: We represent graduate students from every province with the exceptions of Alberta and New Brunswick.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Several councils represent the humanities and social sciences, the natural sciences and medical research. Do you feel that each one gets its proper share of funding?
The people who work in the humanities field feel that they are the poor kids in the family. How do you evaluate the distribution of grants? If there were more money, how do you think it should be distributed? Should more attention be given to one area as opposed to another? The humanities are having a difficult time.
Ms Roy: In terms of funding for graduate students by the granting councils, the social sciences and the humanities are the poor kids. Masters students are not eligible for any funding at all. Ph.D. students receive funding at a lower rate, and some do not receive any funding at all. Certainly, on a per-researcher basis, we are not being funded as heavily as people in the sciences.
That being said, the amount of money needed to do research in social sciences and the humanities is not that great. I am talking about fellowships which support students to learn. To do research is obviously less expensive. Obviously, scientific research can have incredibly high costs, something which we have to consider in the granting process.
There are fewer researchers, and certainly fewer graduate students, who receive funding in the social sciences and humanities.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: We have talked about links with the private sector. It seems to me it would be much more unlikely that the humanities would be sponsored by Bell Canada, for example. Generally speaking, are these private studies or research for the humanities sponsored by the private sector?
Ms Roy: There is some funding. Some people who do aboriginal work receive funding, although that may be through the government in some indirect way.
In some instances, companies want to know about the impact of certain things they are developing. They will look to people in those areas to do that research.I know that Kraft has hired an anthropologist to find out why Canadians eat so much Kraft Dinner.
Many companies in the private sector are not always as reflective of the work they do. They may give research opportunities to some people to do that reflection for them. Often, however, that is not the case. I do research in new reproductive technologies. Pharmaceutical companies will fund me to tell me how the public views it or what the ramifications may be for society.
Research is often about the short term. Because many of the things we talk about have long-term implications, and because it takes a long time to do the research, companies are not willing to do that. That is often because it may be very critical of what they do. They want things that are quick and marketable.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Do you think that a recommendation should go to the government to rebalance the sharing of grants relative to each area? We all agree that scientific and medical research is important, but I think we lose a lot by putting the humanities on the back burner.
Ms Henry: We should certainly maintain an increased commitment to funding. The inequities are so apparent. It would certainly be effective in ensuring a commitment to better funding.
Deciding which council's grant should be rposted or eliminated is a difficult decision. The fact is that a certain number of dollars can support more SSHRC grants than NSERC grants. I would certainly like to see better funding for the social sciences than is currently the case.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Do you share that view?
Ms Roy: Yes.
Senator DeWare: A problem in Canada today is that much of our research is such a secret. We have heard much about the Canadarm in the space program, and we are all very proud of it, but we would be proud of our other accomplishments if we knew about more about them. When information about these successes is publicized, the money seems to be more readily available.
We have developed a concrete in Canada which has expansion capability, and they are now repairing dams in the United States with it. We are developing a new highway using fibres which are stronger than steel. They are building one in Hamilton with sensors in it so you can go to a computer and find out if it is breaking down or not. That is the future of our country.
With the opening up of the world market, are we training for the future? People are interested in the environment and world health. Are the universities switching their research programs to adapt to where we should be going in the future?
Mr. Wilson: I think so. My supervisor always says that one of the nicest aspects of his job is that every year he has an influx of extremely bright people who come into his office with very innovative ideas.
Often, the students are well ahead in some of these aspects. Graduate studies is partly about encouraging these ideas, because it is those ideas which will be taking us into the future. There is no lack of good ideas about the future of this country in our young people, and we are certainly encouraging them through graduate studies. I see no problem with meeting the challenge.
Senator Perrault: Mr. Chairman, 1997 will be the year of the Pacific. I am from British Columbia. Representatives from the entire Pacific community will be visiting Vancouver to attend numerous conferences, including the APEC conference.
Are we doing enough to develop language skills for the century ahead of us? Five years ago I was in Bangkok on a trade promotion trip. In speaking to one of our trade officers I was told that businessmen from Winnipeg, Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto come to the country for two days to slap together a deal and get out of town. He told me that they usually go home defeated. They know nothing about the history or the language of Thailand and Malaysia, and have developed negative ideas about the area. This is most the most exciting area in the world as far as economic development is concerned. There has been a remarkable increase in GNP.
Our students should be infused with language skills. In fact, Asian language courses are given at Capilano College in British Columbia right now and I believe that Simon Fraser is also doing good work in that area. Young people from every province in Canada are attending Capilano and working together to learn these exotic languages, some of which are widely used. With the cooperation of the private sector, they are posted in the Pacific region and they assist in developing new markets, new trade, new jobs and new projects for Canadian industry. It seems to me this is a very important and worthwhile use of young talent, and that we should have more people in language training.
Are we doing well enough in language training? I understand there are some institutions in Canada that have less language training now than they did ten years ago. Do you have some figures on this? It is an area of immense opportunity. On a per capita basis, I think we still hold the record as the number one exporting country in the world. We had best get on the job and develop the markets out there.
Another trade officer in Malaysia told me that 15 or 20 years ago, the Japanese decided that they wanted Malaysia to be part of their economic sphere. They chose some extremely intelligent young people, taught them the languages of the Malaysian peninsula, their customs and habits, and he said those entrepreneurs have arrived. It is an economic invasion. They know exactly how to deploy their forces, and their young people are superbly learned in language and the skills and the customs of this area.
Are we doing enough of that in Canada? Is it not awfully important that we develop this economy so young people can get jobs and employment?
Ms Henry: I do think it is important to develop language skills. Tonight it has been obvious that we all need to move beyond being unilingual. However, I am a bit concerned about the tone of the suggestion that we focus too much on training ourselves to be able to go into countries and take advantage of those countries economically.
Senator Perrault: I did not say that.
Ms Henry: There are many issues.
Senator Perrault: There is a cultural side to this exchange.
Ms Henry: I think the cultural side is excellent, but, at the same time, when the main focus is economics, there are many other questions I would want to consider before I would want to encourage a program to train students to acquire these skills in order to go to these countries and exploit them.
Senator Perrault: I would suggest that you visit Capilano College. Those students are not being trained to be tools of capitalism. They are bright, intelligent people who want to sell more Canadian expertise abroad.
Ms Roy: There is also a role for the private sector in this which certainly benefits from these students having these language skills. I am concerned when we ask the university to be everything. That is partly their responsibility, but there is a role for the community colleges and industry in this. At the conference on internationalization, students expressed the view that they would like to have these language skills, but they want a job first. If they learn Chinese and they land a job in Japan, they are no better off.
Senator Perrault: This is all co-ordinated. I you would benefit from sitting down with these people who could tell you how well it is working.
Ms Roy: Employers are demanding these skills. Unfortunately they are demanding them from the universities at a time when they do not want to fund them. We must consider what the private sector can do in respect of training. They have interests in these areas, so they can set up exchanges where graduates will not only learn the language but be able to familiarize themselves the culture. That would certainly help to build their businesses.
Senator Perrault: The private sector actively participates in the Capilano College program. They are picking up the tab. These young people are of immense use to these private sector companies because they are able to assist them in developing markets.
Ms Roy: That is very different from the role of the university as far as job training goes. I think the college is an excellent place for that to happen.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Are you working on your Ph.D.?
Ms Roy: Yes.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Does the university require that you master at least three languages?
Ms Roy: No. They have no language requirements.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: In Quebec, if you want to attain your Ph.D., you usually need to know at least three languages.
Ms Roy: That has changed. The more I do these sorts of things, the more I renew my commitment to re-learning French.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we now have with us representatives of the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations.
[Translation]
Mr. Irving Gold, Executive Research Officer, Alliance of Student Associations: Honourable senators, my name is Irving Gold and I am the Executive Research Officer for the Alliance of Student Associations.
The students of the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations would like to thank the members of the Senate of Canada who have supported, and will participate in, a study of Post-Secondary education.
It is our belief that discussion, debate, consultation and cooperation will prove to be pillars by which solutions are found for the many challenges faced by our universities. We wish to acknowledge the special commitment of Senator Bonnell who, as the sponsor of this inquiry, has provided a much needed forum for the discussion of EDUCATION in Canada.
[English]
Matthew Hough, National Directior, Canadian Alliance of Student Associations: The students we represent wish to thank senators who have supported, and will participate in, the study of Post-Secondary education in Canada. It is our belief that discussion, debate, consultation and cooperation will prove to be the pillars by which solutions are found to the many challenges facing Post-Secondary education.
We wish to acknowledge the special commitment by Senator Bonnell who, as a sponsor for this study, has provided a much needed forum for discussion of PSE across Canada. Thank you.
The Canadian Alliance of Student Associations is a coalition of 13 student associations from 8 provinces representing 163,000 students.
We advocate on behalf of students at the federal and interprovincial level; provide fora for public debate on Post-Secondary education issues; and advocate for the highest levels of quality and accessibility in the system. We are most definitely a grassroots consensus-based organization.
[Translation]
Mr. Gold: CASA is an organization with the following goals: to represent students at the federal and interprovincial level on issues pertaining to Post-Secondary education; to provide a forum for public debate of issues affecting Post-Secondary education in Canada; and to work towards achieving the highest levels of quality and accessibility throughout the Canadian post-secondary system.
[English]
Mr. Hough: CASA is a new organization. It has been in existence for only one and a half years. The council recognizes that the issues facing students and the post-secondary system is complex. We operate within a complex system of demographics, politics and economics.
Our mandate is not merely to complain, but to assist legislative bodies across Canada in developing policy strategies that make sense, policies which will propel Canada to the forefront of the technical and intellectual community.
Our presentation today will encompass a broad range of ideas. We note some important issues that face students today. We will not bombard you with statistics, because I am sure they are available to you.
On the importance of Post-Secondary education in Canada, Frederick Harbison wrote:
Human resources constitute the ultimate basis for the wealth of nations. Capital and natural resources are passive factors of production; human beings are the active agents who accumulate capital, exploit natural resources, build social, economic and political organizations, and carry forward national development.
The federal government, and all government levels for that matter, have identified important objectives towards which it is working -- debt rposttion, wealth and job creation, among other things.
In order to achieve these goals, this country requires a highly skilled productive work force and a flexible one at that. Wealth creation can no longer depend on natural resources or investment in traditional infrastructure. In the future, we must rely on the skills and ingenuity of our work force to add value to both traditional and new areas of economic activity. A post-secondary EDUCATION is an investment of fundamental importance to the long-run economic well-being of the nation.
A well-postated population is a prerequisite for both economic growth and societal development. EDUCATION gives Canadians the knowledge, skills, attitudes and experiences that enable them to take responsibility for shaping their own future.
It creates the independent and critical thinkers who are necessary to prescribe change for our society and it creates the flexible responsible work force necessary to adapt to these changing requirements. EDUCATION results directly in research and technological change and enhances the ability of the population to capitalize upon these changes. EDUCATION encourages democracy by creating a literate and knowledgeable population, lowers crime rates and decreases dependence on health and welfare programs. EDUCATION enables Canadians to learn about each other, to interact and to live together peacefully.
[Translation]
Mr. Gold: It is projected that nearly 45 per cent of new jobs created by the year 2000 will require workers with more than 16 years of EDUCATION.
In 1994, the unemployment rate for university graduates was 4.7 per cent while the overall Canadian rate was 9.3 per cent.
The average university graduate in Canada paid $10,155 in taxes in 1993. The average high school graduate paid $4,275 over the same period.
[English]
In an unofficial study, it was found that the research-intensive universities in Canada contributed approximately 2.6 times their government operating grants to the economy of the province through direct and indirect expenditures, transactions of students, staff and visitors, and research spin-offs.
Mr. Hough: Before I leap into the section I have named "EDUCATION for a Nation", I would point out on the slide a note about giving EDUCATION a national vision. That will be the next section of our presentation. The last point relates to the promotion of EDUCATION through campaigns.
A question was asked earlier about the promotion of what universities do. In the next three months, the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations will a nation-wide promotion of Post-Secondary education. We have all sorts of catchy titles and ideas as to how to get messages across to the population at large. Stay tuned.
To ensure that Canada is able to meet the need for postating itself in the next millennium, a number of challenges must be acknowledged and promptly dealt with. We have identified four primary areas of concern to students across Canada. The first is student debt. As has been identified by many people in discussions of EDUCATION, accessibility is directly linked to affordability. Tuition has risen dramatically at almost all institutions in Canada and has been coupled with increases in additional fees and other EDUCATIONal expenses, such as books and computers. Students should have the ability to attend any university of their choice, anywhere in the country, based only on academic merit and not the ability to pay.
Student loans are the primary source of financial aid available to students, so much so that it has been noted that this year the average level of student debt is to reach $17,000 and to increase by 1998 to $25,000.
The effect that these increases in debt loads will have upon accessibility has yet to be determined. In a recent comparison with debt loads in the United States, in 1993 the average net debt for Canadian university graduates was $13,000 compared to $11,000 for Americans. That is, of course, in Canadian dollars. Canadian students are clearly disadvantaged by the present system of student aid.
[Translation]
Mr. Gold: CASA recommends to all governments that student loans be treated as a means of increasing accessibility; that the effect of high debt on accessibility be studied prior to increasing reliance on aid; that student loan programs be given funding for bursary programs to cap debt for those in need of additional assistance; that repayment of student loans be made more flexible and cheaper through lowering interest rates and by providing tax rebates for the interest paid on student loans.
[English]
Mr. Hough: The next point we would touch on is student mobility. Student mobility, both academic and financial, is of the utmost importance for the system and for Canada. Difficulties faced by students wishing to attend an institution in another province go against the principle of equality and mobility as defined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
[Translation]
Mr. Gold: Financial restrictions proposed by the Government of Quebec as recently as last week have highlighted the problem. To date, the problems facing student mobility include: the retention of provincial loans for students wishing to study outside British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan; the proposal by the Quebec government to restrict student loans to students who choose to study only within Quebec, or who choose to study in French, not English, outside the province; and the proposal by the Minister of EDUCATION in Quebec, Pauline Marois, to raise tuition for all out-of-province students, but to cap tuition for Quebec residents.
[English]
Mr. Hough: CASA recommends that, through cooperation between the federal and provincial governments, the commitment made by each of the provinces to the principles of the Canada Student Loans Act be reaffirmed, and that any province not following the principles of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should have their loan transfers withheld.
The next point relates to work programs. To ensure that students have adequate experience in their field of study and have access to additional money to fund their EDUCATION, work study initiatives should be pursued. Programs linking student loans to work on campus, work in the community or work in the private sector are all programs that could be implemented on a larger scale. CASA recommends that, through cooperation between governments and institutions in the private and charitable sectors, work programs be established to aid in the EDUCATION and financing of students.
[Translation]
Mr. Gold: Finally, as budget cuts take hold upon the EDUCATIONal institutions of the nation, questions have arisen as to the level of quality at institutions across the country. Students are the first to see the larger class sizes, less tenured staff, and lack of much needed technology.
In fact, it has been noted that as a result of the pace of budget cuts over the past five years, many universities in Canada have severe problems with deferred maintenance. This immediately affects the level of research being undertaken and the quality of staff teaching at the institutions.
CASA recommends that with cooperation between stakeholders in EDUCATION: that funds be allocated to the areas of need at universities across the nation.
[English]
Mr. Hough: In conclusion, all issues facing Post-Secondary education in Canada are issues of vital national importance and should be treated as such. The ideal forum for discussing national issues is with the federal government or a decision-making body in which all governments are represented. Provincial governments should manage post-secondary institutions as part of a system, not as a collection of individual EDUCATIONal units. While maintaining academic autonomy of institutions, the overriding consideration of a government must be the need to create a system that is comprehensive, cost-efficient and accessible.
Each institution must play a role in achieving this system-wide objective. Provincial governments have a responsibility to ensure that each institution cooperates with other institutions to achieve common goals in EDUCATION.
[Translation]
Mr. Gold: Recognizing that all Canadians derive benefits from post-secondary EDUCATION, the federal and provincial governments have a responsibility to fund Post-Secondary education and to be held accountable for that funding. The provincial and federal governments must set their vision, mission and mandate for Post-Secondary education. In the future, change can, and should be achieved with fundamental principles for EDUCATION driving budgetary decisions and not the other way around.
[English]
Mr. Hough: It is the hope of the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations that steps be taken in the immediate future to guide EDUCATION in Canada. At the moment 10 systems of EDUCATION are in jeopardy. A quality system that is affordable and accessible to all students should be the goal of all participants in Post-Secondary education. The provinces may have jurisdiction over EDUCATION, but the nation needs a vision.
The Chairman: I agree that there is a problem of mobility of students from province to province. What do you think is the cause which prevented students from studying at universities or colleges of their choice? Students used to be able to go from province to province, but that seems to have been curtailed.
Mr. Hough: The main point in our presentation relates to the financial mobility of students. The number of students who study inter-provincially has gone from a high of 14 per cent, over 10 years ago, to 8 per cent, a significant decrease. At the same time, the cost of EDUCATION has skyrocketed.
Mr. Gold: We found out about the Government of Quebec's proposed changes to financial aid when the story broke through the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations and the University of Ottawa. We received a phone call from a student who heard rumours that her loans might be in jeopardy if she wanted to study outside of the province of Quebec. She called our office to see if we could look into the matter for her.
I phoned McGill University and various other places. I found out quite by accident that the Quebec government had written a paper outlining the proposed changes whereby students would not be able to study out-of-province if they were Quebec students, and they were planning to study something that was available in the province of Quebec. The paper had been written and submitted to many members of the government and different committees. No one knew about it. I found out rather by accident. We were alarmed and we had a press conference soon after.
Those are the types of obstacles to mobility that worry us a great deal.
[Translation]
Senator Losier-Cool: Regarding the funding issue and the announcement by Minister Marois, it is well known that university tuition fees in Quebec are the lowest in Canada. It is unfortunate that it has come down to singling out out-of-province students.
I think that if the Quebec government had announced it was raising tuition fees for all students, they I would have been more comfortable with this.
To get a clear idea of where your organization stands, could you tell me if you have ever received any complaints about the Canada Student Loans Program?
Did these complaints originate at the national, or at the provincial level? Does your organization have anything to do with the Canada Student Loans Program?
Mr. Gold: Are you asking if our complaints...
Senator Losier-Cool: What happens if someone lodges a complaint about his Canada student loan?
Mr. Gold: The student I was just talking about was a Quebec student receiving loans from the province of Quebec.
Senator Losier-Cool: The complaint then had nothing to do with the province of Quebec?
Mr. Gold: That is correct. The student did not really have a complaint. She merely wanted information. She did not know what was happening and she called me. I began to look into the matter and it was then that we decided to file a complaint.
Senator Losier-Cool: Will a complaint at the federal level concerning the Canada Student Loans Program be brought to your organization's attention?
Mr. Gold: Yes, it will.
Senator Losier-Cool: It will? It will not be a matter for the province, for the provincial student association, one of the eight that you represent?
[English]
Mr. Hough: The situation that was being opened in Quebec in the second semester of last year affected students who wished to study outside the province of Quebec. That is why, at the University of Ottawa, we coupled with the association to blow this issue wide open. Students who were already studying outside Quebec were outraged that they would supposedly not be able to access their Quebec loans the following year in order to continue their EDUCATION.
Other students came to us through our members at McGill University. These are students who might wish to study outside the province in the future and would not have access to loans. Once the issue was exposed, it became a popular topic among the students with whom we deal.
Mr. Gold: In addition, our first reaction...
[Translation]
The first thing we did when we became aware of the situation was to contact the Government of Canada. We asked them if they were prepared to provide financial assistance or loans to students who wanted to study in British Columbia and who could not get any funding from the Quebec government? We did not get an affirmative answer.
[English]
The Chairman: Further to the answers you have given, is it true that a student in the province of Quebec who wishes to take a science course at the University of British Columbia, cannot get a Canada student loan which is handled by the province of Quebec? Do they have a separate agreement with the Government of Canada under which the student cannot access that Government of Canada government student loan?
Mr. Gold: Yes.
The Chairman: Is the stipulation that the student must study in French and then only in Ottawa or New Brunswick?
Mr. Gold: That is somewhat the case. If the student wanted to attend a university in British Columbia, he or she would not be eligible for Canada student loans because, technically, they are eligible in Quebec. You are not allowed to be eligible in more than one location.
If you are in the Quebec system, you are eligible for Quebec loans. If you become ineligible because you are studying a program that the Quebec government does not recognize in their loan system, you fall between the cracks. That is our biggest concern.
The Quebec government has said, for instance, that certain universities will receive equivalencies, but our concern is that now you are picking universities one by one and it is not an equitable system. I should be able to study at any university in the country I choose.
If the Canadian students loan program were to specify that it would cover the student if the Quebec government would does not, it would alleviate some of the problems. However, I do not think it would address the major problem. Although this would bail out some students, the major problem is that this type of situation can occur at all. Students can actually be frozen out of the loan system because they choose to study in an unrecognized province.
The Chairman: Did I also hear you say that a foreign student in Quebec has to pay higher tuition fees to the university in Quebec? When you say "foreign student", you do not mean someone from British Columbia, Alberta or Prince Edward Island? Do you call them "foreigners"?
Mr. Hough: We do not. We prefer not to.
The Chairman: Are they considered foreigners as far as the university is concerned?
Senator Lavoie-Roux: This is only since last week.
Mr. Hough: If I could just define the issue, we are talking about proposals that are on the table now. When we made noise about the fact that the Quebec government was going to restrict its loans to the majority of students studying within their province, we were able to at least see the minister put it off for a year. We are still working on this.
The other issue which came up last week dealt with the differential tuition which, as we note in the presentation, is simple discrimination. It is discriminatory to take students from other provinces, using the terminology "foreign students", and charging them at the rate of the average national tuition.
I was having a discussion with students at McGill University who are now looking to take the government of Quebec to court. It is ridiculous that an issue of basic equality should require to be taken to court by student associations.
Students at Bishop's University were more concerned with the fact that they would be treated differently than the fact that the would have to pay a minimal tuition increase in the next couple of years. I was shocked by that, and so were they. We are working on it.
[Translation]
Senator Lavoie-Roux: In Part IV of your study, you state that student loans are the primary source of financial aid available to students. You speak of student debt loads of $17,000 which are set to rise to $25,000 by 1998.
I am surprised by a recent comparison with debt loads in the United States. For example, in 1993, the average debt load of a Canadian university graduate was $13,000, compared to $11,000 in the case of an American graduate. This surprises me a great deal because tuition fees are very high in the US compared to here in Canada, the difference being that perhaps more bursaries are available. Am I correct?
Mr. Gold: You are right, many more bursaries are awarded.
[English]
Mr. Hough: The reason for scholarships and other forms of student aid work study programs in the United States is to keep the level of student debt down.
The study I mentioned was released last week by one of our members at the University of Calgary. Many months were spent compiling this. That was the conclusion they reached.
The other point that has not been taken into account is the treatment of EDUCATION within American families. It is very different from that of Canadian families and concerns EDUCATION savings plans. The main reason noted in this study was the fact that there were scholarships and other supportive financial factors for students once they had entered an institution. If you are interested, we could forward this information to the committee.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: We talked about Quebec and the latest decisions that were made. I am not in agreement with them. You outlined some obstacles to the mobility of students.
[Translation]
...the retention of provincial loans for students wishing to study outside British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan.
[English]
Other provinces also seem to be encountering some difficulties.
Mr. Hough: Absolutely. In fact, as soon as the Quebec issue came up, we began to deal with the fact that British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan retain the provincial portion of their loans. When a students gets a loan, it is in two portions: One is a Canada student loan amount and the other is a provincial amount. If a students wishes to study outside, say, Alberta, there are exceptions to the rule, specifically as it relates to programs that are not offered in a particular province. Veterinary medicine specific to those provinces.
We are most interested to see what impact holding back the provincial portion of the loans will have. It is quite a significant amount.. It will definitely be a consideration for a student who is thinking of studying outside of the province.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: You talked generally about the situation of post-secondary EDUCATION in Canada, about the debts incurred by students, and so on. You said the debt will increase from $17,000 to $25,000 and perhaps even more. Do you recommend that the federal government or the provinces be more generous in terms of their loans? Do you have any practical suggestions? If so, I did not see them in your brief.
Mr. Hough: The recommendations are listed in the paper. First, student loan programs should be funded. Unfortunately, this would be additional funding to provide, for example, forms of bursary programs to cap the level of student loans for those who, after graduation, are not able to rposte their debt because they may not be able to gain adequate employment. This area is being dealt with in Ottawa right now. We are supportive of those types of programs.
Second, repayment of student loans should be made more flexible. I was reading through the speeches that were given in the Senate where it was mentioned that student loans are expensive. If a student chooses a fixed-plus-5-per-cent interest rate, that can become very expensive.
Third -- and this idea is also being discussed by many people -- tax rebates should be provided for interest paid on student loans. This would be similar to the rebates provided for businesses on business loans.
Those are practical ideas. However, they depend upon new money. We like to connect dealing with student aid and the costs of EDUCATION with work programs. We noted that at the bottom of our brief. Perhaps I did not make that link clear enough. I have discussed with a number of MPs the possibility of work study being linked to experience before, after or during EDUCATION, to keep down loans -- whether it is done by bursaries, if a student commits himself or herself to charitable work, or whether it is done directly through a payment to the student from a private sector institution. We are trying to develop those ideas.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: You say that the repayment of the debt should be more flexible. Does a federal government loan have to be repaid immediately, or only when the student attains employment?
Mr. Hough: Presently, as the Canada Student Loan Program is set up, a student has six months after graduation when he or she is not required to make any repayment. Then they are asked to start payments. However, if the student is unable to do so, then he or she has up to 18 months to try to get a job and catch up on those payments. There are interest relief programs and that sort of thing. We are not complaining about that flexibility.
The problem relates to the repayment of those loans. What connection has the level of repayment to income? Presently it is fairly staggered. It has been said that, if you are earning $20,000 you are not compelled to make repayments, but if you earn $20,001, you should bank $300. Some graduation would be helpful. Some encouragement by the federal and provincial governments to the banks would be a good thing.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: In Quebec, repayment is unnecessary until the person has a steady job. Is it the same rule for the federal government?
Senator Andreychuk: Yes, but interest keeps accumulating.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: I does not appear to be the same rule.
[Translation]
Mr. Gold: There is the matter of the interest charged.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: The amount can differ.
[English]
Senator Lavoie-Roux: I should like you to give me your vision. You can tell me in French or English, or both.
Mr. Hough: Throughout this document, we have presented a vision of accessible, affordable, quality EDUCATION that is run in a cooperative system -- that is, one system of EDUCATION coast to coast to coast. Although it may sound very simple in the way we have put it, we have presented a number of ideas of how that can be done now.
Presently, it involves 10 systems. We should like to see the discussions that have begun here continue. Hopefully, the provinces would come on board at some point in time and commit to the points I just made.
Senator Andreychuk: You indicated that any province not following the principles of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should have their loan transfers withheld. Have you done any research into whether that is acceptable as a point of law, or is it just your pious invocation that the Charter should apply? That is not my understanding of what "mobility" means in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Mr. Hough: It is a point of law, and we have consulted with lawyers.The lawyers to whom we spoke were ready and raring to go; not necessarily to ensure student mobility, but because it is an issue related to Quebec. We backed off that a little.
The issue not only pertains to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms but to the Canada Student Loans Act.
Senator Andreychuk: I understand the Canada Student Loans Act very well. I was simply intrigued that you thought there would be a case to be made in a court of law with regard to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Was that comment based on the Quebec situation or on all the situations that you have pointed out?
Mr. Hough: It has primarily to do with the issue related to Quebec. However, the Canada Student Loans Act relates to the remainder. Our crew in Quebec have also consulted with lawyers and are going ahead with a lawsuit against the government. They are confident that it is outright discrimination.
Senator Andreychuk: The four problems you have identified are affordability, portability, quality of EDUCATION, and one system across Canada. One other problem which has been raised, although not by you, is that our system of EDUCATION should be competitive with other EDUCATION systems around the world. Is our system equal to or better than it was when I was a student? We wanted to ensure, when we graduated from a university in Canada in any discipline, that we could stand the test anywhere in the world.
Of all those factors, what do you think is the most pressing problem?
Mr. Hough: The problem facing students or the system?
Senator Andreychuk: Students or the system; whichever way you want to answer. Where would you put your emphasis?
Mr. Hough: It is definitely our position to put emphasis on the students.
Senator Andreychuk: On which problem?
Mr. Hough:. The issue of finances was the recurrent theme of a tour that I recently took across Canada. Before I left Ottawa, I wondered whether I would find that students across the country have similar difficulties. The issue that was raised over and over again was not just the cost of EDUCATION but student debt and the effect that has on their studies.
Senator Andreychuk: We used to provide employment programs for students. We did not talk about getting student loans; we talked about getting a job. There were all kinds of student summer programs. Do you think that is a solution which should be revisited, as opposed to placing our emphasis on student loans?
Mr. Hough: Absolutely. I think that is a preferable alternative to building up endless amounts of debts. If students were able to gain employment experience, that would solve many of our problems.
Senator Andreychuk: Is that what you meant by work programs to be established?
Mr. Hough: Absolutely.
Senator Andreychuk: You were not talking about co-op programs?
Mr. Gold: We are talking about anything that would increase the employability of students after graduation.
Mr. Hough: Yes, and their ability to pay.
Senator Forest: You are concerned about the financial situation of students. We know that funds are scarce at the federal and the provincial level; at least that is what we are told.
The Canada Student Loans Program loans are given out by the banks. Keeping in mind the $6 billion in profits the banks are making, have you ever thought of a program which might shame the banks into investing in the future of students?
I am serious. Students organizations could have a major impact on the policies of the banks, and I believe there should be some onus put on the banks with respect to the interest rate they charge students. It would be a great publicity campaign for them if they were to invest in Canada by giving students a break.
Senator Losier-Cool: That was in The Globe and Mail this morning.
Senator Forest: I am sorry; I did not see it.
Senator DeWare: Banks go to universities to sign up students for a reason. Once the students have a loan to pay at a particular bank, they will buy their RRSPs, their house and everything else there.
Senator Forest: That is all the more reason to give them a break.
Mr. Hough: Absolutely.
Senator DeWare: Have you any experience with students trying to get a loan to study abroad? I know of a student in Ontario who asked for a student loan through the provincial government. His loan was cut in half because he was going abroad to study.
Mr. Hough: Whether students will be fully funded when they travel internationally is another situation which differs across the country. I have had more difficulty finding a concrete answer to whether the provinces will fund students going overseas than to any of the other issues we talked about tonight. It is just another issue of student mobility.
I have had discussions with students about that. Some students get 100 per cent while others get 50 per cent. We are still trying to pin that down.
The Chairman: Thank you for your presentation. I advise to you monitor our hearings for the benefit of students. Perhaps you can suggest some recommendations we may include in our report.
Our next witnesses are from the Canadian Federation of Students.
Ms Jennifer Storey, Women's National Executive Representative, Canadian Federation of Students: Mr. Chairman, the title of our document is, "The Debt Trap: Student Financial Assistance in the 1990s". As a personal aside, I am a walking example of just such a trap. I have a debt load of $35,000 of student loans through the Canada and Ontario student assistance plans, as well as $5,000 in private loans. I am in my last semester and getting ready to start paying off those debts.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: What type of studies are you pursuing?
Ms Storey: I am a fourth year student of English at the University of Guelph.
There is a lot to say about the current state of Post-Secondary education in Canada. We could spend the next 45 minutes alone on federal transfers and not even scratch the surface. Instead, we have chosen to focus tightly on an issue that illustrates how the lack of coordination among all levels of government, as well as years of mindless cut-backs, have seriously eroded the accessibility of our Post-Secondary education system.
In the past, government officials have often said that student financial assistance should be used as a last resort after all other sources of income have been explored and exhausted. In fact, you can still find such statements in a number of government documents. However, the truth is that students have become more dependent than ever on federal and provincial student financial assistance programs, especially over the last six years. According to the national graduate survey, the average amount borrowed by university students who received student assistance and graduated in 1990 was $8,700. Since then, the situation has changed considerably. Tuition fees have risen quickly, federal loan limits were significantly increased and many provinces have eliminated their grants programs. Let us take a brief look at each of those factors, the first one being tuition fees.
Over the last decade, the share of revenues provided by tuition fees has increased at double the rate of government grants for colleges and universities. From 1986 to 1991, university operating revenues and expenditures for full-time equivalent students increased by approximately 30 per cent. That is an annual average increase of just over 4 per cent. During that same time period, tuition fees have increased by 60.8 per cent, or an annual increase of 8.2 per cent. Meanwhile, the Consumer Price Index has only increased by 28.1 per cent, or an average annual of 4.2 per cent.
Excluding Quebec, annual tuition fees in Canada now range from $2,300 in British Columbia to approximately $3,700 in Nova Scotia. Acadia has the highest tuition fees in the country. At the same time, first-year students are also being expected to pay an additional $1,200 to lease a portable computer. Naturally, financial assistance programs were modified to reflect these increasing costs incurred by students.
In 1995, for instance, the federal government increased its maximum weekly allowance for single students from $104 to $165. This decision drew mixed reviews, especially from our members, but the government defended its point by saying that it was only responding to persistent demands from students, which is entirely true. However, it should be said that our demands were first made when most provinces still had substantial grants programs. By 1995 that was no longer the case.
Almost all the provinces have eliminated or substantially rposted their grants programs at this point. In Newfoundland, P.E.I. and Nova Scotia, grants have not been available since 1993-1994. The same is true for Ontario and Manitoba. In New Brunswick, grants have not been available since 1992-1993. In Saskatchewan, grants have not been available since 1985-1986. B.C., Alberta and Quebec still have some grants.
The impact of these changes have yet to be fully determined, especially the most recent ones, that is, the increase of the maximum weekly loan allowance for Canada student loans recipients. In addition, not all provinces keep solid statistics on the combined debt of their students. The available numbers offer a fairly distressing picture at this point. For example, in Ontario, the average yearly loan per student was $4,755 in 1991-1992. Four years later, that figure was claimed to $6,430. In other provinces, the average yearly student loan was around the $6,000 mark. In Nova Scotia, it was $5,997. In British Columbia, it was $5,996.
The number of recipients in Ontario has also increased from 142,000 students in 1991-1992 to 211,000 students in 1995-1996. That is an increase of 600 students over a five-year period. Some 30.5 per cent of all Ontario university students, and 39.6 per cent of all college students, required student loans. By 1995-1996, the participation rate had climbed to 42.2 per cent and 55.6 per cent, respectively. Unfortunately, the results of the latest national graduate survey will not be available for another year.
We have to rely on estimates as to how much students generally owe when they graduate. It is difficult to determine how much average student debt has grown since 1990. However, according to the federal Department of Human Resources Development, current estimates for the average debt load for this current year hover around the $17,000 mark for one year of studies. The numbers are projected to increase by 1998 to $25,000 for one year of study.
The fact is Canadian students are now among the most heavily indebted in the world. The average student debt load incurred for a four-year undergraduate program in Canada now compares with the average student debt contracted for a similar degree at a private and expensive American university such as Yale.
When confronted with numbers such as these, many people tend to shrug them off. They will contend that Post-Secondary education is still a good deal for students -- after all, graduates usually find meaningful employment soon after graduation, and their earnings are truly much higher than the earnings of their high school counterparts. Seen from this perspective, student borrowing should be considered an investment, and a pretty good one at that. However, this argument omits certain key facts.
Foremost, it omits the fact that not all students have to borrow to reap the rewards of their investment, which means that student financial assistance programs in this country, since they are means tested, are creating two classes of graduates: students who graduate with no debt whatsoever and students who graduate with some degree of debt who typically come from less privileged backgrounds.
Preliminary provincial statistics obtained by the Department of Human Resources Development indicate that, in 1994-1995, 45 per cent of all student loan recipients came from families with average annual incomes of $31,000 or less. There are exceptions, of course. Students who reside in regions where there are no Post-Secondary education institutions, or where the existing institutions offer limited choices, tend to borrow substantially more because they must leave their families and incur additional living costs.
The second point that this previous argument omits is that the current labour market situation for new graduates has changed substantially. There is some controversy about what has happened to the earnings of most post-secondary students over the last 15 years. While some studies show they have remained stable, others suggest that they have decreased in real terms.
In any case, there is little doubt that our future graduates will face a very different job market. The government certainly seemed to think so back in 1994 when it introduced a discussion paper on social security in Canada. At that time, the government believed that, "In the 21st century, the traditional idea of job security within a particular firm or industry will be mostly obsolete." This is a clear recognition that future graduates would face a labour market that was characterized by unstable employment.
In addition, no one disputes that new graduates face a heavier debt burden than their predecessors as measured by looking at debt-to-earning ratios or the amount owed to student loan programs divided by the annual earnings of graduates.
Mr. Lavigne will continue our presentation.
Mr. Brad Lavigne, Chairperpson, Canadian Federation of Students: I should like to talk about the implications of this for today and the future, as well as offer some concrete solutions at the federal level which would help to alleviate some of these disturbing trends.
The combination of high tuition fees, massive loans and few grants is bound to have an impact on students, especially students from low-income families. We sincerely believe that, as a result of the changes we have described here, accessibility to Post-Secondary education is diminishing both in terms of the number of people who enrol as well as the type of person who enrols.
The United States experience is revealing in that regard. According to a 1990 study by Thomas Mortenson, the major expansion of the grants system between 1966 and 1970 led to a corresponding increase in participation of low-income students. However, when loans became the primary form of student financial aid in the 1980s, between 40 per cent and 50 per cent of the participation gains made during the previous decades by students from the bottom quartile of the family income distribution were lost. The shift in emphasis from grants to loans in the United States was such that, whereas grants comprised two-thirds of U.S. student aid in the 1970s, they comprised only one-third of student aid in the 1980s.
The researcher goes on to say that, for a variety of socio-economic reasons, students from low-income families are at a greater risk of not completing college or university and hence of not securing well-paying jobs after graduation. That is definitely the situation here in Canada. His study compared attitudinal differences between those from low-income backgrounds and those from higher income backgrounds towards the issue of EDUCATIONal investment. Not surprisingly, it found that students from low-income families are less willing to borrow money to go to school and less willing to take on a debt load.
Several other studies have shown that grants can have a significant impact on a student's decision to enrol or to stay in school. For instance, a recent study from the United States General Accounting Office shows that up-front grants often help first- and second-year students from low income families to stay in school. More broadly, the decline of accessibility undermines the role of colleges and universities as instruments of social mobility.
Our Post-Secondary education system has traditionally enjoyed very strong support from Canadians. As recently as 1992, 83 per cent of Canadians thought that universities were doing a good or very good job. This support is all the more surprising when you consider that only a minority of Canadians actually have access to Post-Secondary education. However, Canadians do not seem to mind the fact that they are paying for a system that most of them will never use. Why? We believe that is because an accessible system of post-secondary EDUCATION embodies something precious. It offers Canadians the hope of a better future for their children. However, that support will not last forever, especially if carrying a huge debt load becomes the only way for children from middle-class and lower-income families to gain access to higher EDUCATION.
What do we think should be done about these unprecedented levels of student debt? In recent years, the discussion around those issues has been centred around finding clever ways to help students cope with their debt, either by lengthening the repayment period, adjusting the monthly payments to graduates' earning, or a combination of the two. We believe any lasting solution to the problem of student indebtedness must include grants, and preferably up-front grants. In fact, in the long term, we would like to see the Canada Student Loans Program turned into a Canadian grants program. However, we also know that it will take years to rebuild a system which has suffered a death of a thousand cuts.
In the short term, it means that any new funding for student assistance should be targeted toward specific groups of students, namely, first- and second-year students with high needs, students with parental responsibilities, and graduates with large debt loads who are having difficulties repaying their loans.
We would argue that up-front grants should be offered to the first two categories. The argument against up-front grants is that they are inefficient and risky. Governments may lose their investment if the student to whom the grant is given drops out of school. However, we have seen that there are strong indications that up-front grants can prevent students from leaving school, which saves governments money. When students drop out, governments lose part of that investment that they had made by providing operational grants to colleges and universities. They also lose all the potential revenue that graduates would generate through the income tax system. To us, up-front grants are still a wise investment in that they introduce a measure of social equity into the system.
Besides, up-front grants cannot be taken away once students have received them. Like other Canadians, students have seen government cutbacks in areas that were considered untouchable only few years ago. Even basic government services can no longer be taken for granted. A recent Ekos poll found that 60 per cent of Canadians felt less confident that the health system would be able to take care of them than they did five years ago. Given this general lack of confidence, the introduction of deferred grants would have very little impact on students who are debt shy.
However, deferred grants can be very helpful to those who are feeling the effect of crippling debt loads. The crucial issue, of course, is the debate over what constitutes a manageable debt level. We would hope that this difficult problem would be thoroughly researched in conjunction with the members of the National Advisory Group on Student Financial Assistance.
Implicit in all this is the desire to see the federal government play a leading role in the development and implementation of these policies. The federation has always been a strong proponent of pan-Canadian principles for Post-Secondary education.
As we have seen, Canadian students face widely divergent systems of financial aid, different fee structures, eligibility requirements, and so on. Knowing it flies in the face of the current decentralizing thrust, we still wish to state the need for a strong federal involvement in student financial assistance. While we acknowledge that the Council of Ministers of EDUCATION, Canada, has a key role to play, ultimately the responsibility for assuring fairness for all Canadians lies with the federal government. In the case of student financial assistance, we call upon the federal government to fill the void left by the provinces.
On that note, we would like to open the discussion with the members of the committee.
The Chairman: Thank you. Could you define for me what you think is a reasonable debt load?
Mr. Lavigne: A reasonable debt load for a Canadian to go through work training and furthering themselves to make them a functional member of society, I would argue that that debt load should be zero.
I would argue that what we want to do in this country is create a system of EDUCATION whereby someone going through the system who is wealthy and can afford any user or tuition fee, and someone coming through from a low-income family deserve to come through the system, at the end, equal. Why should we have a system of debt for one person and not the other? It is unfair. They both come out of the system trained; but, as we have seen in the statistics, the person who takes on that debt never catches up in real terms with the person who went through the system who did not have to borrow.
What is an adequate level of debt? I would argue the debt should be zero.
The Chairman: Do you think it should be free?
Mr. Lavigne: I think students should contribute a significant amount of their income, but we do not believe that the current system of up-front user fees and the system of borrowing money to cover those up-front user fees is equitable. We support a system whereby we contribute to all our social programs significantly based on a progressive income tax system, similar to that of other social programs we have in this country. Should we pay for it? Absolutely? In what manner? Not in the form of an up-front user fee.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Can you explain to me why most provinces seem to have dropped out of grants? The two provinces which do have them are Quebec and B.C. Why did the other provinces drop them?
[Translation]
Mr. Charron: Would you prefer that I answer in French or in English?
Senator Lavoie-Roux: I could have put the question to you in French. I forget that you spoke French.
Mr. Charron: To be completely honest, I have to admit I wonder why the provinces have taken this action. I have the distinct impression that some politicians in Ontario and perhaps even various provincial public servants believe the demand for post-secondary posttion is not elastic. What I mean is that regardless of the cost of Post-Secondary education or the type of financial aid available to students, they believe students are still going to attend university or college and that the cost will not present a problem.
They realized that aid needed to be provided, but it made no difference to them whether the aid was in the form of a bursary or a loan.
I think we have come to realize today that this makes all the difference in the world. More and more people are realizing this. Declining university enrolment, particularly in certain institutions in Ontario, has open many people's eyes. Many have come to see that this does have an impact.
If we also take a look at community college enrolment figures, we note that the availability of financial aid can affect student choices. If a student must choose between a four-year program and a two-year one and if the only alternative is to go into debt, I think that this issue will have an impact on the decision reached. When it comes to choosing between a community college and university and getting the best possible Post-Secondary education, a person's choice should be based on individual preferences and abilities, not on the ability to pay tuition fees.
I think this fact is now starting to dawn on people. Once, it was felt that this did not matter, but now things have changed.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: In Quebec, where Cégep is free and loans and bursaries are still offered, do you see a difference in student debt loads compared to students in other provinces?
Ms Doherty-Delorme, Researcher, Canadian Federation of Students: I have some figures on this. As was mentioned earlier, in the case of students outside Quebec, the debt load is $17,000 and it could go as high as $25,000. If I recall correctly, a recent study conducted by the University of Montreal showed that the debt load of Quebec students was only $8,000.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: This means that loans and bursaries, particularly bursaries, make an enormous difference. When we compare what we call Cégep in Quebec and a community college in the other provinces, we see that one is free and the other is not. This likely makes a considerable difference.
Senator Losier-Cool: Moreover, young people can attend university and live at home, whereas a Francophone from Saskatchewan who enrols in the University of Ottawa will likely incur a higher debt load.
For example, the University of Moncton is a small institution offering few bursaries compared to Mount Allison in Sackville which is a wealthy university administered by wealthy individuals. This same is true in Toronto. I could make the same argument for the province of Ontario.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: In Montreal, Quebec City or Sherbrooke, which all have universities, the fact remains that the level of poverty is higher in these cities. Therefore, access to university is not necessarily easier just because there is an institution located in the municipality. Often, a host of socio-economic factors come into play.
Mr. Charron: You raise a valid point because students living in the regions are disadvantaged by a system that operates solely on the basis of loans. There is no question about that. If there is no choice available to students in the regions in terms of courses to take, they must move and live on their own. A system that offers loans only places these students at a clear disadvantage. Obviously, Francophone outside Quebec frequently encounter similar situations.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Do you favour a return by the other provinces to a loans and grants system?
Mr. Charron: We have to look not only at what we hope to see in the long term, but also at what is possible in the short term. Obviously we must always bear these two considerations in mind.
In the long term, we would like to see the federal government take over from the provinces. The latter have shown that they are not interested in offering grants or providing a more equitable system. In the short term, we would like to see the federal government offer grants targeted to specific groups. We already have what are known as special opportunity grants.
These particular grants are offered to women pursuing post-doctoral studies, to students with a disability and to special needs part-time students. Therefore, this type of very special federal grant already exists.
We would like the government to consider making grants available to first-year or second-year students with high needs. We feel that this would be a good start.
Right know, we find that there is a vacuum. The federal government could, at least outside the province of Quebec, take the lead and offer this type of grant. Obviously, it will take years, providing Quebec does not change its system, to revert to a situation like the one in Quebec where substantial grants are available.
Ms Doherty-Delorme: I would add that Canada is the only industrialized country not to have a national grant program.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: The only country?
Ms Doherty-Delorme: That is correct.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: I would image you mean the only western nation?
Ms Doherty-Delorme: Yes.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you. You realize, of course, that, in Canada, EDUCATION is under the jurisdiction of the provinces whereas in most of the other countries, the federal government is responsible for EDUCATION.
Mr. Lavigne: Yes, but the federal government also operates the student aid package. Even in the United States, the federal government operates a grant system. Although it is a different system of federalism, they have a state university system where certain provisions of the EDUCATION system are in the hands of both the federal and state governments. I think we could draw a good comparison with the United States model because their debt loads are a bit lower than ours, surprisingly enough.
The Chairman: I got the impression that you think the provinces are not interested in initiating or enhancing student grants or loans and, therefore, the federal government should do it. If the federal government starts interfering too much, some of the ministers of EDUCATION or the premiers of provinces will accuse us of stepping on their toes. We have to be very careful about how we arrange anything like that. Do you agree or disagree?
Ms Storey: I agree with you to some extent. Most definitely we must seek as much cooperation as possible. At the same time, it is very important to maintain a clear focus. We can draw comparisons to health care, for example. We should be attempting to allow for maximum portability of Post-Secondary educational opportunities in Canada.
Earlier this evening there was a lot of discussion on that issue around this table, especially with respect to some of the changes presently being made in Quebec.
If we are to maintain portability, we need cooperation. I am not necessarily convinced that leaving that up to the Council of Ministers of EDUCATION in Canada will accomplish that. The federal government must also be at the table to work that agreement out.
The Chairman: From your brief, I understand that your organization would support up-front grants to students with high needs and students with parental responsibilities; and that you would recommend deferred grants to those students with disabilities.
How effective in terms of accessibility and affordability does your organization find the income tax measures for students and parents of students?
Mr. Charron: If you look at the current tax measures such as non-refundable tax credits for tuition fees and the EDUCATIONal amount, then if you look at how much money a student has to earn in order to fully take advantage of the measures that already exist, you will find that it takes a fairly high income in order to take advantage of those measures. It takes something like $11,000 a year for students to fully take advantage of those measures. We can consider ways to help students through the tax system. This idea of being able to dpostt the interest on the loans that students have to repay is something that we would like to think about.
We have also considered that perhaps compulsory fees such as ancillary fees and student union dues could be included in that non-refundable tax credit. Perhaps we should consider a refundable tax credit for students. That would be more progressive. Students with a low income would get some money back, which would help them out. However, I would be lying if I that we have carefully considered the fiscal implications of such measures.
We mentioned the issue to Peter Adams, chair of the EDUCATION caucus in the House of Commons for the Liberals, and he agreed to forward some of these ideas to officials of the Department of Finance. At this point, we are not clear that this would be such a good idea.
If we had to choose between up-front grants or deferred grants and tax measures, we would go with grants in a second.
Senator Andreychuk: I was interested in the fact that your brief is entitled "The Debt Trap" and that your entire brief deals with the financial aspects and no other aspects of Post-Secondary education. Is this your only preoccupation in Post-Secondary education, or is it your primary one and, as such, you wanted to focus on it? If it is just your primary focus, are there other areas that you are studying as a student organization?
Mr. Lavigne: Yes, there are many. Whenever there are government committees and inquiries, we must narrow the scope of our presentation. We can either get to the heart of one issue, or touch upon on a number of them. We chose the former.
Other issues we are currently working on include the effects of funding cuts and the discussion between quality and access. That is currently all the rage within the country right now, particularly with the Maclean's survey ranking which came out a couple of weeks ago. We are working on the corporate role and the private sector role within the Post-Secondary education system; privatization; the cost recovery of Masters of Business Administration programs; and professional differential fees.
Senator Andreychuk: Have you produced any papers that might help us?
Mr. Lavigne: We have produced many papers. I know the inquiry is an ongoing process. We used our presentation as an opportunity to highlight the one issue we think Parliament can do something about, but we will be more than happy to forward our ongoing research.
The Chairman: Will you send that to our clerk?
Mr. Lavigne: Yes.
The Chairman: Thank you for your time, effort, thoughts and viewpoints.
We have students with us today from the journalism school at Carleton University. We have with us Beverley McRae and Nahlah Ayed. They will be issuing a press release of what happened here this evening.
I have also a copy of a press release issued last week which I will table.
I hope these individuals will be with us for the remainder of our hearings in Ottawa. Whether they travel across Canada with us is another matter. They are enthusiastic and they are hoping we will like what they put out in their press releases.
The committee adjourned.