Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs,
Science and Technology
Subcommittee on Post-Secondary education
Issue 3 - Evidence - December 5 Meeting
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 5, 1996
The Subcommittee on Post-Secondary education of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 8:30 a.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, we have with us today Mary Ann McLaughlin, Director, National Business and EDUCATION Centre, Conference Board of Canada. Please proceed, Ms McLaughlin.
Ms Mary Ann McLaughlin, Director, National Business and EDUCATION Centre, Conference Board of Canada: With me today is one of our principal research associates at the Conference Board, Michael Bloom.
The Conference Board is a private, not-for-profit applied research institute. We conduct research on issues of strategic concern to our members, most of which are large corporations and departments of federal and provincial governments. Since we are not an advocacy organization, it is quite unusual for us to attend this type of forum, but we do bring a particular perspective.
In about 1989 a number of our members began to identify a skilled work force as one area of concern and one on which they wanted the Conference Board to do some research. As a result of that concern, the Conference Board set up the National Business and EDUCATION Centre, the mandate of which is to foster a working relationship among leaders in business, EDUCATION and government.
In simple terms, our work involves primarily two areas, those being skills and partnerships. The intent is to look at how business can develop its own corporate strategies for involvement in EDUCATION, to look at what kind of public EDUCATION system and skilled work force we need in Canada to ensure a strong quality of life. I do want to stress that we are working in support of a strong public EDUCATION system within this country.
During the six years we have been in operation we have developed a number of products through our research and dialogue, which are being used by all the ministries of EDUCATION in the country, by many EDUCATIONal institutions including universities and colleges, and by business. In response to the question, "What are employers looking for?" we developed an employability skills profile, a generic statement in both English and French, copies of which I can make available to members of the committee. We developed a statement on Science Literacy For the World of Work as well as a statement of Ethical Guidelines For Business-EDUCATION Partnerships.
In answer to some concerns about the motivation for business and employers in general to be involved with EDUCATION, we brought together a group of organizations, including employers, educators and labour unions to develop ethical guidelines for the development of partnerships throughout this country.
Recently the Conference Board put together a report entitled "Canada's Performance and Potential." Michael Bloom played a key role in putting together that report which identified human resources and EDUCATION as key elements for the future prosperity of our country. I have asked Michael to prepare a brief to relate the work that we have done in our centre to the overall view that the Conference Board has developed on Canada's performance and potential, which I hope will provide you with some direction in the areas of skills and partnerships.
Mr. Michael Bloom, Senior Research Associate, National Business and EDUCATION Centre, Conference Board of Canada:A few years ago the Conference board identified three main goals for EDUCATION in this country, which were to prepare people for citizenship, for work and for lifelong learning. I want to talk about the second dimension, preparing people for work, because it is an area to which we have been paying particular attention.
Of particular interest is how Post-Secondary education helps develop knowledge and skills so that people become highly productive. Our recent report called "Performance and Potential: Assessing Canada's Socio-economic Performance," stresses that people really account for our economic success. We recognize that there are many dimensions to the well-being of individuals and countries, but in this report we focus on the economic side.
Why are people important? You can move capital around; you can make all sorts of adjustments to conditions in countries, but you cannot move people. People are wealth creators, and our research indicates a clear correlation between EDUCATION, knowledge, skill levels, income and quality of life.
We have made a significant investment in EDUCATION in this country. The latest figures I have show that we spend more than 8 per cent of our gross domestic product on EDUCATION, because we deem it to be important. Today we spend more than $15 billion on our 77 universities and more than 200 colleges. In fact, we are a world leader in Post-Secondary education spending. We spend more than two 2 per cent of our GDP and almost 30 per cent of our total expenditure on EDUCATION on Post-Secondary education, more than the amount spent by any other G-7 country. Currently, 1.5 million Canadians partake of post-secondary EDUCATION.
Twenty years ago 18 per cent of 18 to 24-year-olds were enrolled in full-time university, and by 1993 we had moved up to 31 per cent. The result, of course, is that the average EDUCATIONal attainment of Canadians is on the rise, the number of years spent in school has increased steadily, and Canadians are receiving more credentials.
To put these statistics into context, between 1984 and 1994 800,000 new jobs were created in Canada for people with post-secondary credentials. During the same period, 1.4 million jobs were lost for Canadians with high school EDUCATION or less. Our most recent research shows that this is true even in the information technology sector. Some have claimed that information technology will lead to a loss of jobs; however, we find that it is not leading to a loss of jobs. Overall, no jobs are being lost due to information technology. What is happening is that low-skilled jobs are disappearing and highly-skilled jobs are being created to replace them.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Not equally.
Mr. Bloom: Yes, equally; that is our latest finding. The results of the study have not been released yet, but that is what we found.
However, current levels of investment in Post-Secondary education are unlikely to continue into the future. As our economy recovers and governments continue with their restraint programs -- and all of us around this table are familiar with that -- the share of GDP devoted to Post-Secondary education is likely to decline. Even if it were not to decline, Canadians would continue to worry that we were not producing the graduates we need to maintain our nation's high standard of living. They would really be thinking about whether the Post-Secondary education system is supplying people with the right combination of knowledge and skills required to succeed.
This issue of skills is an interesting one. Most people think of skills as being technical skills, job-specific skills, and those are important. However, increasingly we have found through our work at the Conference Board that what employers are seeking is a combination of those job-specific or technical skills and what we call employability skills, the generic academic/personnel management/ teamwork skills.
One member of the Conference Board, who is a senior executive with one of the large banks, once remarked that his bank hired on the basis of academic skills and fired on the basis of personnel management and teamwork skills, which was something of an epiphany for him and a perspective shared by a number of other executives. Our two pieces on employability skills, along with our piece on Science Literacy for the World of Work, look at what those skills mean or, at least, how we can articulate them in a general sense.
The challenge is to ensure that universities and colleges produce people with both technical skills and those broader generic skills. If we fail to do that, we put at risk our success in the future. We do not have current data on the generic skill levels of our general population; we are looking at how we can gather that information. The only data we have on generic skills comes from the recent report on literacy which captures only a portion of those employability skills.
We have a population with increasing numbers of credentials, but our concern is that those credentials are concentrated in the humanities, not in science and technology. In 1992, 52 per cent of university degrees in Canada were granted in the humanities, twice as many as in Germany and Japan, and more than in any other G-7 country. Whether this will affect us negatively is unclear.
The proliferation of technology, the technical nature of jobs, and the rising requirement for an understanding of science, math and technology suggest that, even though a large percentage of our population receive university or college degrees, we may still have problems in competing with the rest of the world.
Employers are concerned about Post-Secondary education. In a recent study 88 per cent of large employers expressed concern about the ability of our EDUCATION system to prepare students for the world of work. Approximately 40 per cent of the 500 largest companies in Canada invest more than $100,000 annually in public EDUCATION. Some of them spend several million dollars a year. Of those, 43 per cent contribute because they want to help develop a better postated and trained work force. Post-Secondary education is an area in which they make a substantial investment. Scholarships and bursaries are the most common types of EDUCATIONal support received from business; 78 per cent of corporations who contribute to EDUCATION grant scholarships and bursaries, most of which are for Post-Secondary education. Also, obviously, there are bricks and mortar, R&D relationships and, increasingly, business-EDUCATION partnerships. The tendency of business is to invest in the areas of science, technology and mathematics rather than in programs aimed at social issues, health and the arts, although there is some interest in those areas.
The impact of business support on students' academic achievements, on skills development and, indirectly, on their wages and productivity is difficult to gauge. I think the trend line is clear and employers are in it to stay.
What are the ethical implications of involving other groups in EDUCATION? We developed our ethical guidelines for business-EDUCATION partnerships to try to address that issue. We tried to articulate a framework for dialogue which would help people develop sustainable ethical partnerships, and we hope the colleges and universities will use it; some are already using it.
Overall, there is much that is positive about Post-Secondary education in Canada, a lot that we can be proud of, but there are also some danger signals, some concerns, particularly about the kinds of subjects being studied and whether the disciplines are responding to changes in the world of work and are providing the skills that people need to succeed when they enter the work force. We feel that we need to address these serious problems; certainly there are no quick fixes. To date we have depended upon our people as well as our natural resources, upon skills, creativity and entrepreneurship, to succeed and prosper. Post-Secondary education in the remainder of this decade and beyond will be a key to shaping the individuals who can help us succeed in the next century.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: I know we have asked you to address post-secondary EDUCATION, but has the Conference Board also addressed primary and secondary EDUCATION? We know that the drop-out rates there are increasing. As well, many families do not have the economic means to keep their children in school, even through high school. Is the Conference Board also addressing these concerns? Of course, big corporations are looking for the brightest high-tech graduates, but the problems with EDUCATION are much broader than that.
Ms McLaughlin: Your point is a valid one, senator. When the Conference Board became involved with EDUCATION in 1989-1990, the decision was made to focus on the elementary and secondary parts of the system exactly because of the points you are making.
Traditionally, business had been providing support to the post-secondary institutions to prepare graduates for specific jobs, but then we realized that EDUCATION is a long-term investment and that we needed to get it right in the very early years. There is even some concern within our own organization that we did not focus on the pre-school years, and we have been looking at how we might do that in the readiness-to-learn area. We have not developed any specific programs, but some members of the Conference Board are looking now at work-family policies.
The short answer to your question is that we do have a strong focus on elementary and secondary EDUCATION and on how business, or employers and communities in general, might work with those parts of the EDUCATION system.
In simple terms, we say that the community has a responsibility for the EDUCATION of its children. We want to help the community understand how it can help with the elementary, secondary and Post-Secondary education of its children.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: How can you get the big corporations interested in the first two levels of EDUCATION? It is easier to involve them in post-secondary EDUCATION because the benefits there are more immediate, but they seem content to let somebody else take care of the elementary and secondary levels.
Mr. Bloom: According to my calculation, during the past 10 years in Canada approximately 300,000 employers, out of some two million employers, have been involved with co-operative EDUCATION, work experience and work placement. A large portion of this involvement has been at the secondary school level.
Through our Business-EDUCATION Partnership Award programs we have clear evidence of a growing involvement of corporations in support of EDUCATIONal goals at the elementary and secondary school levels. In Canada today there are many thousands of business-EDUCATION partnerships, their challenge being to connect particular areas of business expertise with the needs of the EDUCATION system in an appropriate fashion. We find that Canada has some of the most innovative partnerships in the world.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: According to the table at page 7 of your brief, a large part of corporate support for EDUCATION is dedicated to technology. What is your feeling about a better balance as between humanities and technology? We could all become good technicians, but life is more complicated than that.
Mr. Bloom: As someone who has a Ph.D in medieval history, I certainly respect that perspective.
Businesses tend to become involved in areas of EDUCATION in which they feel competent; they hesitate to speak out about areas in which they are not expert. educators themselves feel more comfortable with science and technology. That is part of the reason for the high proportion of corporate support to science and technology.
I believe that there is an appropriate role for business to support the humanities, and I think they are gradually finding ways to do so. However, I must stress that the business-EDUCATION relationship is one which grows by steps. To jump suddenly to speaking out about arts and social issues without careful consultation could set the relationships back. Science and technology is a much more natural fit right now, and that is why we see those sorts of numbers. I would expect them to change in the future.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Even though people may become qualified to work in the areas of science and technology, they cannot always find jobs. You tell me it is because of the work market. Do you detect weaknesses in the training offered by our colleges and universities?
[Translation]
... training of students which would account for the fact that they have some problems finding a job? Do you understand French a little? If you have a PhD in medieval studies, surely you must understand French a little?
[English]
Ms McLaughlin: Rather than talking about weaknesses, I think we are seeing strengths in the institutions that provide opportunities for students, young and old, to connect with the employment situation while they are studying. That is why we are strongly supportive of a co-operative EDUCATION approach, or some form of that. It is established by a local institution in the community and is appropriate for that community. The underlying principle is that there is some connection between what the students are doing in their academic or learning environment and the employment situation. They come out with the kinds of attitudes and behaviours and problem-solving abilities that really help them connect with the labour market when they graduate.
Mr. Bloom: We have seen some indications that colleges and universities are increasingly interested in reaching out beyond their traditional structures to involve others. I am sure you are familiar with the work of the ACCC with the colleges in expanding their involvement in Asia. Clearly there is a trend around the world for Post-Secondary education to market itself beyond its traditional boundaries, even beyond national borders. Today one can receive American degrees in Canada through distance EDUCATION and one can receive Canadian degrees outside Canada. That is a trend that is likely to continue.
There is also an increasing interest among colleges and universities in developing skills. Colleges have had an interest in skills from the beginning, but they have become more interested in employability skills, the generic skills. Some universities as well have become involved in our recently-established employability skills forum, which reflects their interest in broadening their role in postating people. We hope that trend will continue.
The Chairman: Could you tell us what is being done by governments, by business and by groups like yours to communicate your findings to high school students so that they can make informed decisions as to what subjects they should study in school.
Ms McLaughlin: We have, in the last six years, put a lot of effort into promoting the concept of employability skills. We estimate that there are approximately 10 million copies of our document on that subject in one form or another around this country in student planners, on walls, in charts, et cetera.
The Chairman: Is it on the Internet?
Ms McLaughlin: Yes. We encourage other organizations to modify it and to use it as appropriate. We encourage school boards to discuss it with parents and to develop their own version of the document in thinking about what they expect from students at the end of elementary school, high school, college or university. We are using a whole range of strategies to try to foster the concept that there are basic skills that everyone needs to be either employable or self-employed in the future. It is in our interest to try to foster the idea that these skills are compatible with one goal of EDUCATION, which is to obtain employment. We understand, of course, that that is not the only goal of EDUCATION.
Senator Andreychuk: You talked about EDUCATION guidelines, Dr. Bloom, and you said that these guidelines were for ethical partnerships. Were you referring there to the type of research and who would control it or was it something broader than that? Was this study, with its resulting guidelines, related to concerns and a trend that you were worried about?
Mr. Bloom: The genesis of the ethical guidelines was an interest among the business community in clarifying the roles and responsibilities of business in partnerships. There had been a few occasions when educators had expressed the opinion that some businesses had sought to use the business-EDUCATION partnership to their economic advantage, to their material profit. Our members became involved in partnerships because they wanted to improve the EDUCATION system. They saw that as being a benefit to society and to themselves.
The attached report talks about some of the philosophical theories that underlie partnerships. The notion of enlightened self-interest is one dimension of partnership. By doing good to the community by doing good to students you do good to yourself and, whether you become a preferred employer or you improve your own employees' morale or you improve your relationship within the community in which you operate, you could benefit. That happens when there is a level of trust between the partners and the community.
It was the issue of trust that led to the ethical guidelines that said how we could articulate the kinds of concerns that people had about partnerships in a fashion that would clear up the concerns and would lead them to understand what they were trying to accomplish and help them find some common ground. This little brochure and the accompanying report seek to provide people with the tools to address those sorts of concerns. We find that, once trust has been established, partnerships work well. However, if trust is not there, the evolution of those partnerships will be hindered.
Senator Andreychuk: You have said that we put 50 per cent of our resources into the humanities; whereas Japan and Germany put more into the sciences. The question is not just who is in humanities and who is in science, because some universities build humanities into their science programs and vice versa. Are you saying that we are not preparing people in job-specific ways as do those who put their emphasis on the sciences? Are you saying that the Japanese and the Germans, for example, are doing a better job of both within a science mould?
Mr. Bloom: No, in short.
Senator Andreychuk: Also, I want to know where that leads us. If we need those special skills but we also need some broad team management skills and all those other things, how do we blend the two?
Mr. Bloom: On the first point, the 52 per cent humanities graduates was flagged as being an area of concern. I do not think that there is enough analysis yet being done to fully know the implications of this pattern. We have very good people in this country, but we also have a very high graduation rate in the humanities. The Conference Board does not yet have an analysis which would allow us to say whether this demonstrates an economic implication.
Senator Andreychuk: But certainly in the community there is a signal that we are not going in the right direction, and more and more there is discussion among corporations and in other corridors about that being a negative aspect of our EDUCATION system. You are saying that there is no data to say that that aspect puts us at any disadvantage.
Mr. Bloom: There is no data of which I am aware,
On your second point about skills, we have long held the view that skills can be infused into any program. It is possible through programs at the post-secondary level to give people technical skills, job-specific skills and those more generic skills. We are certainly not proposing the creation of new programs. We would like to see more attention paid to building these skills into the existing structures.
Senator Andreychuk: If you were to make one recommendation to the federal government in the area of Post-Secondary education, what do you think would be the most critical recommendation to make in relation to post-secondary EDUCATION today?
Ms McLaughlin: As an non-advocacy organization, non-policy-prescriptive, this is a difficult area for us to touch, as you can appreciate. Our standard recommendation, based on the mandate of our centre and the interests of our members and, we believe, Canadian society, is that we really do need to pay attention to that link between EDUCATION and employment, whether it is self-employment or employment by someone else, and that whatever structures we put in place have to somehow address the need for a broad, strong base of generic skills that are developed in the context of the programs in which the student is engaged.
Senator Forest: You have spoken about achieving success and I want to know your definition of "success." Many successful business people nowadays are not making much of a success of their lives. I am thinking of Allan Eagleson and a few more -- and I do not mean just those who are being corrupt. I should like to have your opinion about that.
I believe in the co-op programs and so on. I have been involved in EDUCATION for a long time. Town and gown must get together; there is no doubt about that. There is one philosophy which says that, if students are well-grounded in the arts and humanities, have a broad perspective and the ethical qualities which we consider important, they are well-prepared to take on the employment skills. People know that we need to co-operate and to have partnerships with business which are profitable but, on the other hand, they want to see the students free, certainly in the first few years of Post-Secondary education, to pursue the broad aspects of EDUCATION. When I hear that 52 per cent are in the humanities, I think that is great. There is no doubt that job skills are important, but it is my understanding that a number of businesses are saying, "Give us the bright young people who have ethical standards and can think, and we will attend to the employment skills which are specific to our particular company."
Ms McLaughlin: That is precisely our message, that the employability skills profile not be job-specific and be related to positive attitudes and behaviours, ethical standards, all those things that you are talking about. That is one point.
The second point is that we fully agree with the principle that preparation for employment is only one goal of EDUCATION. We address that principle because that is what we are competent to address, but it is only one goal of EDUCATION.
[Translation]
Senator Losier-Cool: I will speak in French, as this is easier for me. I am happy to see you again, Ms MacLaughlin, and to have another opportunity to discuss EDUCATION with you. My questions will in some respects echo those of my colleagues, although they may be more specific since I will be referring to mathematics, sciences, technology and employment.
Last week, in the English edition of Chatelaine, mention was made of the fact that there are many well-paying jobs in Canada that cannot be filled because there is no one properly trained to fill them. Sciences and technology were the two areas singled out.
There are two parts to my question: firstly, since some issues concern the curriculum or study program and since EDUCATION is an area of provincial responsibility, can scientific information be made readily accessible if the province maintains that this is not a priority?
Once again, I refer to the national science and mathematics tests given recently. Canadian students did not earn very high test scores. I recall that New Brunswick students scored 59 per cent. I do not remember what the results were in the case of the other provinces.
There are two issues to contend with: firstly, the matter of the provincial curriculum and secondly, sciences and technology. How do we address these issues? On page 8, Mr. Bloom noted the following:
[English]
We need a quick fix in EDUCATION so that we will not lose another generation of students. A quick fix in EDUCATION is not easy. I think the EDUCATION system has always been behind the trends in society. It takes a while to bring about changes in the EDUCATION system.
Ms McLaughlin: This document was released in October in conjunction with National Science and Technology Week, so it is brand-new, although we have been concerned about the specific area of employability for some time. We had, as part of the group working on this document, provincial ministries of EDUCATION. In fact, we have been informed in writing that this document will be used and reviewed in relation to the pan-Canadian science curriculum which is being developed and which we hope will be in place by 1998. We are really comfortable and excited by the fact that elementary and secondary schools across Canada will have access to a curriculum that is national in scope, but which also incorporates the kinds of concepts described in this document.
In relation to the Third International Math Study, the survey of students identified that students find math boring. They find the content boring and they find the teaching boring. That is precisely what we are trying to address. What can the community do to help the teachers make science and math exciting? We know that teachers cannot do everything in their classrooms, but there are many opportunities to connect what is happening in the community with the science and math curricula. We think we are on the right track here and we are bringing together programs and initiatives to try to generate that sense of excitement that will help young students see the importance of these concepts and skills in the context of the curriculum.
Senator Losier-Cool: When you say "community," are you talking only about financial institutions or do you include parents and whatever other groups?
Ms McLaughlin: We include parents and groups such as the local theatre company. We have an annual competition for the best business-EDUCATION partnership, and the entries are just coming in now. Each year we publish a book called The One Hundred Best Partnerships in Canada. Those partners cover the whole spectrum -- the very small community social service organizations, the Y, the theatre group, the hospital, et cetera. They are all employers. We think it is important that their perspectives be considered.
Senator Losier-Cool: Some parents try to motivate their children in relation to mathematics, but some parents today say that they cannot help their children any more because they cannot follow the new math programs.
Ms McLaughlin: We are struggling with the concept of readiness to learn. We are thinking about how employers can work with their employees to help them motivate their children in the areas that are important and to ensure that their children are ready to learn. We think we might be able to make a difference in that area.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we now have with us, from the National Union of Public and General Employees, Mr. Larry Brown.
Mr. Larry Brown, National Secretary-Treasurer, National Union of Public and General Employees: Honourable senators, what is being circulated now is a booklet which we have put together, which includes our formal submission along with a number of background documents to which we refer in our submission. Since we do not represent members in Quebec, most of our work tends to be unilingual. Our ability in French is almost non-existent, so all the background supporting documents are in English only. For that I apologize, but it is the best that we had available.
Let me offer our commendations to the committee for undertaking this work. From where we sit, the study of Post-Secondary education is absolutely crucial because, from what we observe, we are at a pivotal point in the development of the Canadian Post-Secondary education system, and we have some real concerns about whether we are going in the right direction.
The National Union of Public and General Employees is a federated-style union. We are the second-largest union in Canada, representing some 310,000 workers across the country by way of independent organizations which came together under our umbrella about 15 years ago. For example, the Saskatchewan Government Employees Union and the Ontario Public Service Employees Union are members of our organization.
We represent some 40,000 workers in the EDUCATION field, primarily in the provincial community colleges and non-university, Post-Secondary education system. Although we do represent some workers in universities, high schools and school boards, the bulk of our membership in the field of EDUCATION are people who work for provincial departments of EDUCATION and in community colleges in particular. Along with the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the Canadian Federation of Students and the Canadian Association of University Teachers, we are members of a coalition on Post-Secondary education. Let me say that we support the submissions to your committee by that group.
In particular last night I was reading the brief of the Canadian Federation of Students and I must say that even though I knew some of that in general to see it in detail, the increase in the tuition fees and so on, was quite remarkable, and the debt that those students are going to come out of university with. I have a 19-year-old son who is about to enter that process so I was interested in submission for two reasons.
By way of introduction to our submission, we have the general concern that we are told over and over again that we are in an era of global competition, an international marketplace, that the old economy is disappearing, that a new economy is developing which needs well-postated and well-trained workers and that that is the key to Canada's prosperity. Although we would quibble with some of those statements, we certainly do not disagree with that direction; a well-postated and trained work force, it seems to us, is absolutely mandated by what we are seeing in world economic developments.
We even flagged what we would consider a myth about unemployment in Canada, which is that the main reason for unemployment is lack of EDUCATION and training. We would argue that it is the lack of jobs that creates unemployment, In any event, many official statements of government seem to endorse the proposition that with better EDUCATION and better training our unemployment situation would not be nearly as bad.
Finally we note a particular problem being faced by Canadian youth due to the high unemployment rate, lack of ability to enter the work force, the disparity between the EDUCATION they receive and their ability to enter the job market afterward, and so son. When we put all those concerns on the table and then look at what is actually happening in Canada with the federal government cutting the amount of money available for Post-Secondary education -- and in EDUCATION in general in some provinces -- we just do not see how those two things fit together. It seems to us that there is something wrong with that picture. If EDUCATION is as urgently needed as it is argued to be -- and we accept that -- then why are we seeing all these cuts in federal transfers to the provinces for EDUCATION. We just do not think those two ideas fit together very well.
We have included in our formal submission several pages on the history of federal involvement in Post-Secondary education. It is clear that that history did not come about by whim or as a result of some sort of fly-by-night decision; it was a very carefully thought-out response to policy developments in the country and to the need for Post-Secondary education. We would commend to the Senate that section of our submission and ask what has made all those historical developments suddenly invalid.
We have seen a 20-year development of the role of the federal government in funding Post-Secondary education, a 20-year development of a national system, and all of a sudden, within the last five or six years, we have done a 180-degree turn. We think the history of increasing federal funding for EDUCATION and increasing federal transfers to the provinces to enable them to maintain high standards of Post-Secondary education is still valuable. That history is something that we should learn from, not ignore.
The current situation has been brought about by three major federal developments. The first is the famous, or infamous, CHST, the Canadian health and social transfer, by which there was a further $7 billion cut in federal-provincial transfers. That is in addition to what the C.D. Howe Institute said was an accumulated $30 billion of cuts over the nine years of the previous administration and what the Ontario government claimed was $41 billion. Whichever figure you choose, it was a fairly substantial amount of money. The CHST added a further $7 billion to that cut.
The Canadian government argues that is has now set a floor of $11 billion below which cash transfers to the provinces will not fall, but the Saskatchewan government, among others, argues that in fact the transfers will fall below $11 billion. In any event, we are talking about that amount of money covering federal transfers for all EDUCATION, health and social services, and that is simply not enough money to give the federal government the clout it needs to enforce national standards in those areas. Already the provinces are not toeing the federal line on health care and social services. There is not enough money left in the system for the federal government to impose national requirements.
We quote a number of figures in our brief which demonstrate the ultimate impact of the CHST cuts. I acknowledge that different calculators come to different amounts of money but, when you are dealing in the $100 billion range, whether it is $100 billion or $107 billion is really academic. The impact of the CHST cuts will represent a huge amount of money. While external factors indicate that we need to respond to an international global economy, in our view, the CHST has actually moved us farther away from the possibility of new national standards for EDUCATION.
According to the CHST legislation, new national standards for social services, health or EDUCATION require unanimity on the part of the provinces and the federal government. We wonder how practical it is to think that, for example, the governments of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia will agree on much of anything in those three policy areas. We wonder when the day will come that the federal government and all ten provinces will actually agree on one policy development at the same time. Having said that, while new national standards may be possible on paper, in reality that possibility is almost non-existent. In our view, we are moving away from what we have had to a position which, in practical terms, almost guarantees the inability to set national EDUCATION standards.
In addition to cuts in federal-provincial transfers, the federal government has ceased its long-standing practice of buying community college seats for its employees, which will create great instability at the provincial institution level. If, instead of purchasing seats in community college, the government gives the money to individuals to shop around, the stability of the Post-Secondary education system will be negatively affected. Finding the cheapest and the best deal in Post-Secondary education is often not the best deal in the long run because the quality and the standard provided by private trainers who are undercutting public institutions will be suspect.
Further, the federal government is now offering to transfer to the provinces its entire role in the labour market, including getting people out of the unemployment stream and back into EDUCATION. We quote at page 8 of our submission the words of the federal government itself on what its continuing role will be in the labour market, and I would ask that honourable senators take a look at that paragraph. This is the federal government's own view of the role it will have in the labour market after the transfer to the provinces. I suggest to you that its role in the labour market will be absolutely minimal.
At page 9 of our submission we quote some of the provincial response to all of this, which certainly suggests that our analysis is not wrong. If I can use the vernacular, the provinces are saying to the federal government, "If you will not pay, then butt out. If you will not put the money forward, then do not tell us how to run our systems."
Each province, except British Columbia and New Brunswick at this point, has warned its post-secondary institutions of further cuts at the provincial level as a result of these changes in federal policy. In New Brunswick that bucking of the trend, if you will, has been financed by huge increases in tuition fees, and the British Columbia government is making serious changes to a number of its commitments. The jury is still out on whether the British Columbia government will follow through on its promise not to cut post-secondary EDUCATION.
At page 10 and following of our submission we set out trends which we have identified through working with our members who deliver non-university Post-Secondary education across the country. First of all, this tremendous program called rationalization really amounts to the abandonment of programs, the amalgamation of programs, a tightening up of the system, and rposting the amount of non-university Post-Secondary education that is available.
In particular, adult basic EDUCATION and English-as-a-second-language courses have been cut in almost every province, to the point where, in some provinces, there is almost nothing left of those two fundamental Post-Secondary education courses.
There is a trend in public institutions to stop training medical laboratory technologists. However, private sector laboratories are offering employer-specific training in this field, where they train people only in what they need for a specific job with a specific employer. We say that the role of the private sector labs in training, in effect, a captive work force is being carried out at the expense of public and transferable EDUCATION in the medical technologist field.
In nursing there is a strong trend toward both upscaling, where nurses are being trained in universities rather than at the community college level, and downscaling where nurses are being replaced by minimally-trained people who are coming out of a private sector training system.
We are seeing right across the country an increasing trend toward the privatization of the non-university, post-secondary system, which is being done in three ways. First, there is an increasing number of private institutions competing to deliver Post-Secondary education, such as Joe's Comp College and that kind of thing, and some of them probably offer high-quality EDUCATION. Undoubtedly, some of them do not. Undoubtedly, some of them offer a piece of paper that is not transferable within the workplace. You can go out and spend thousands of dollars to get your diploma, and the employer says, "Who the heck are they? I do not know who you were just trained by."
Undoubtedly, we will see bankruptcies increasing among those private deliverers halfway through the courses. We have seen in every province students, after paying great amounts of money for tuition fees, getting halfway through a private sector training program and then having the trainer go out of business. There is not a province that has escaped that phenomenon. That is a form of privatization about which we are very concerned.
A second concern we have about privatization in the EDUCATION system is the imposition by the private sector of its goals and views so that EDUCATION becomes EDUCATION for employment as opposed to EDUCATION in general. Finally, we have the privatization of parts of the public system, the ancillary delivery services.
Two more trends that we are seeing in every province are the regionalization of the governance structure and administrative functions. We are seeing tremendous upheavals within the non-university, post-secondary delivery system as governments restructure to try to meet the new needs. Across the board we are seeing downgrading of the work and increasing use of technology which, we acknowledge, is not all bad, but it certainly is having a major impact on the people who deliver the services.
At page 13 and following, we try to highlight some of the impacts province by province, with the exception of Quebec. I would simply commend that to the members of the committee.
For example, in Newfoundland there is an economic crisis in post-secondary EDUCATION. We list some of the cuts that have already taken place in that province in the Post-Secondary education field. In Nova Scotia they are looking at amalgamations and the closing of five campuses. In New Brunswick the tuition will have gone up by something like 400 per cent in four years. Prince Edward Island is looking at severe cuts in their revenue. We give you some examples of the kinds of cuts going on in Ontario, and so on across the board. No province has escaped.
Finally, at page 20 of our submission we suggest that there are alternatives to all of this, that this is not necessary. We see in the current globalization climate the need for a national response to these trends. Because unemployment is a national problem, we see a need for national response. We recommend that there be a permanent standing committee established at the federal level to deal with the question of Post-Secondary education standards across the country.
We think there must be more money put into the system. We think the federal government must ensure that, when it gives money to the provinces for Post-Secondary education, that is where the money is spent. The CHST system, as you know, does not require that at all; it is simply a kind of allowance given to the provinces, and the provinces can do with it what they wish.
We recommend that public institutions continue to be the primary deliverers of Post-Secondary education, thus ensuring equity and quality of programs.
We argue that all provinces, with the exception of Quebec where the situation is different, need national standards. Not to have national standards in the current environment strikes us as just nonsensical. What we are saying to ten provinces, like Newfoundland with its financial crisis, "You are on your own these days to deliver quality Post-Secondary education."
In conclusion, we say that there is a serious disparity right now between the needs of Canadians and what governments at all levels are doing to the Post-Secondary education system. We read the speeches which say that a well-trained and postated workforce will be absolutely crucial to our ability to compete and we see what is being done to the system, and we just cannot fit those two pictures together. We recommend that the Senate draw to the attention of the Canadian people where this downsizing and restructuring and all these cuts in transfer payments have left us vis-à-vis our post-secondary EDUCATION system. If you are able to do that, we think it will have been time well spent.
The Chairman: You have not said much about the role of the Council of Ministers of EDUCATION. Do you think they are being very effective?
Mr. Brown: They are being effective within the limits they have. We think there is a peculiar tendency at the provincial government level in general for ministers of EDUCATION to be defenders of their jurisdiction as opposed to being interested in a Canadian model at the end of the day. We see some strange kind of provincialism coming out of a number of EDUCATION ministries which says, in effect, "In the Constitution in 1867 EDUCATION was given to us and, therefore, we will keep it. We do not want any kind of federal intrusion at all. We used to tolerate federal intrusion because of the money that was coming through. If the money is not coming, we will not even accept that minimum amount." That is all very interesting and all very defensive of their jurisdiction, but we are not sure it is in the best interests of the need right now for a pan-Canadian, Post-Secondary education system.
When the British North America Act was enacted and the provinces were given jurisdiction over EDUCATION, EDUCATION did not represent a terribly active role for government. It was just one of those little things that you could give to the provincial governments. I do not think that legislation in 1867 ever intended that there be no national standards in EDUCATION.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Were there not other reasons for giving jurisdiction for EDUCATION to the provinces, other than just the transfer of money?
Mr. Brown: I am sure there were.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Mostly based on language, and that is why Quebec is so sensitive about its jurisdiction over EDUCATION -- and I support Quebec in that regard.
Mr. Brown: As would we. I did flag the fact the situation in Quebec is different. The language, culture and history of Quebec are different, and national standards should not invalidate the system in Quebec. On the other hand, provincial autonomy in EDUCATION in P.E.I. or in Newfoundland or in my home province of Saskatchewan makes much less sense.
The Chairman: You also said that the federal government must put a mechanism in place to ensure that the money targeted for Post-Secondary education is actually spent on Post-Secondary education. Do you have any evidence that some of it is not spent on that now?
Mr. Brown: The former system provided that, if the federal government transferred money to a province for EDUCATION, the province had to spent that money for EDUCATION. If they wished to build a road with their own money and spend the federal money on EDUCATION, they could do that. Under the CHST, which has only been in place since April, even that requirement is gone. The federal government gives, in effect, a blank cheque to the provinces. It is a considerably smaller blank cheque than it used to be, but it does not say that they must spend this money for EDUCATION. It says, "Here is your allowance," and what the provinces do with the money is entirely up to them.
In social services there is one national standard: Provinces cannot impose eligibility restrictions or put a limit on social services. They can do whatever they wish with the federal block funding as long as they meet that one requirement for social services.
In health care there are approximately seven standards the provinces have to meet. In EDUCATION there is no national standard; there is simply no national prescription. In short, the province is not required to spend its CHST allowance on EDUCATION to any degree. The federal government has no power to say, "Your standards on EDUCATION have fallen below what we consider acceptable, so we are not giving you any more money.
The Chairman: You suggested that a mechanism should be put in place by the federal government to do that. What type of mechanism do you have in mind?
Mr. Brown: We would argue first that, if the federal government is transferring money to the provinces for Post-Secondary education, the province should be required to spend a certain amount of money on Post-Secondary education, which has not been the case. We say that the federal money should be more like a matching grant such that, when the province spends its own money, then the federal government spends some, too. That is the first thing.
Second, we argue that the federal government should earmark a certain amount of the funds allocated to the provinces for EDUCATION. The money that the federal government transfers under the CHST can be spent on building roads or for agricultural subsidies or for anything else; it does not have to be spent on EDUCATION.
We argue that, one, a province should be required to spend its own money and, two, that a certain amount of the money the federal government transfers should be allocated to EDUCATION.
Senator Andreychuk: In essence, the federal government has said that some of the money is for EDUCATION, but you are saying that the provinces can define EDUCATION as they see fit. Are you really saying that the provinces can take the money for EDUCATION and do anything with it they wish in clear conscience? My understanding is that the money is being given to the provinces in contemplation that they would spend it on EDUCATION, but that "EDUCATION" might be defined in creative ways that would not fit within the generally accepted definition.
Mr. Brown: I would never argue about what governments do with a clear conscience because that is beyond my ability. In practical terms, I think it is important that we understand that under the old rules, if the federal government gave money to the province for health care or EDUCATION, that is where they were required to spend it. Under the old rules, the provinces were not required to spend their own money on either health or EDUCATION, but they did. There was a sort of a label put on the corner of the dollar bill. That money had to be traced directly into the EDUCATION pot.
Under CHST the provinces receive a blanket amount of money for health, EDUCATION and social services and, if a particular province decides to cut in half its spending on EDUCATION, to shore up its spending on health and to spend nothing on social services, as long as they do not have an eligibility requirement for what they do not spend on social services, it is all fine. Other than your reference to conscience, there is no requirement that the money that is transferred from the federal government to provinces for EDUCATION be spent on EDUCATION.
The Chairman: Many years ago I had the privilege of being Minister of Health for my province, and in those days provinces argued that health and EDUCATION were under provincial jurisdiction and that the federal government should not be telling the provinces how to spend their money on health and EDUCATION. Because they were controlling EDUCATION and health, the provinces persuaded the federal government to give them block funding. Maybe they made a mistake, but the point is that that is where the provinces got their strength together to do as they wished with the money and to keep the big boss out of it. Now the federal government has no control to ensure a standard EDUCATION across Canada.
Mr. Brown: We would not go so far as to argue that the federal government should be setting down every requirement for every detail of EDUCATION in the provinces either, because we do not think that makes sense. The best balance in a federal system is where both levels of government share the responsibilities and the decision-making. As a result of purely financial decisions, what we have now is provincial autonomy over EDUCATION, almost complete autonomy over social services and a big question mark about health care. I do not think that is what the Canadian people mandated their governments to do. In fact, the last time there was a vote on the question of devolution of powers to the provinces, the constitutional amendment was voted down. Yet, what we are seeing now is a huge devolution of powers to the provinces, to the point that we now have ten discrete and distinct EDUCATION systems with not a single national standard that the federal government can call on -- not one at this point.
When provinces such as Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and Alberta hit the next bumpy road in the oil patch revenues, they will be left to finance post-secondary EDUCATION -- a world-class system geared to international competitiveness and all of those sorts of buzz words. Those provinces will be left to finance a Post-Secondary education system entirely on their own, and we do not think that makes any sense. It does not make sense to tell the provinces that they have no role to play, but to tell the federal government that it has no role either to finance EDUCATION or to define it does not seem to us to be credible either.
We represent people at the provincial level and we are saying that the federal government, by cutting itself out of the play, is simply giving the provinces the ability to administer the layoffs when we hit the next economic downturn. Some provincial governments in this country are simply not equipped to finance world-class EDUCATION <#0107> and I could wander off on a tangent about the other thing the CHST did, which was to eliminate all the automatic stabilizers from the federal government. In the next downturn those provincial governments will be left with considerably less revenue, virtually no federal support, and they will be expected to turn out people who can compete in the international EDUCATION system. How do those circles get squared?
Senator Andreychuk: Does that lead to the natural conclusion that the smaller provinces, such as Newfoundland, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, will be weakened because they will have less flexibility and less resources, as opposed to Ontario, Quebec or British Columbia?
Mr. Brown: If you look at our province-by-province breakdown, you will see that that is already the case. Newfoundland does not have to wait for the next downturn; it is already in a state of crisis because of the fishery situation and so on. Some parts of Newfoundland have a 45 per cent unemployment rate, and the increasing pull-back of the federal government from financing Post-Secondary education has meant that their EDUCATION system is in a state of crisis already.
There are all sorts of theories about what our national system of government is about, but one is that it helps balance the strengths and weaknesses of the regions. There will be periods when Ontario is in worse economic shape than Alberta. It will not necessarily be only the weaker regions who suffer, but certainly they will be vulnerable first.
Our mutual home province of Saskatchewan is not big enough to sustain a serious downturn in its economy and to still be able to turn out the kind of quality Post-Secondary education that everybody seems to agree is required these days. There will be periods in our history when B.C., Alberta and the Atlantic region are healthy and Ontario may be going through a manufacturing downturn. I do not think it cuts only one way.
Senator Forest: I appreciate the concerns being expressed here. I think all of us involved in EDUCATION recognized that, when block funding was approved, the federal government would had no more say. We also recognized that the provinces were saying, "If you are not sending us the money, you will not run our affairs." I think that saw-off has led to an unfortunate situation.
I like your recommendation that, when the feds pay up, the provinces have a responsibility to do the same, but I do not know how we could make that fly.
The Chairman: Could you expand on your recommendation that the funding formula be changed.
Mr. Brown: The background documents that we tabled this morning include a chapter which goes into detail on that.
Let me qualify my answer -- and I mean this quite seriously. Sometimes the details of how we change are less important than the recognition of the need to change direction. If we decide to change direction, there are probably 100 useful formulas that would be just as good as ours. Basically, we are talking about a combination of per capita and provincial income, mainly per capita, that would in effect say that the federal government is responsible for a certain amount of funding transfers on a per capita to provincial income basis, which would then go up automatically as the GDP or the rate of inflation increases. We tried to be fairly simplistic about it. In our view, the details of our formula were not as important as the need for stable, predictable, long-term funding.
I would not argue with you if you took issue with one of the details of our formula, but stability, predictability, and increase based on something objective are the elements that we think must be there - all starting from the premise that a province must maintain certain standards to get that money in the first place.
The Chairman: Thank you. We will now hear from the Canadian Union of Public Employees.
Ms Morna Ballantyne, Executive Assistant to the National President, Canadian Union of Public Employees: Let me begin by apologizing for Judy Darcy's absence. As you may know, she is rather busy right now with airline business, and she sends her regrets.
With me today is Cathy Remus, who is a senior research officer in our organization and who in fact has more expertise on issues dealing with Post-Secondary education than I do. I will start by telling you a bit about the Canadian Union of Public Employees.
CUPE is Canada's largest union. We represent more than 450,000 workers across the country and we represent more university workers and college workers than any other union in Canada. We have approximately 40,000 members who work within the university and college systems -- administrative and support staff, library staff, technicians, food service workers, maintenance and custodial staff, security personnel, grounds workers, teaching and research assistants, and sessional instructors.
We also represent many parents of students who study at post-secondary institutions and perhaps even more parents of students who would like to study in the post-secondary system.
I will touch on the main points in our brief, and then Cathy will expand on those.
The first thing that we want to talk about is our concern about the current trend in this country toward the privatization of higher EDUCATION facilities. We believe that it is absolutely essential for Post-Secondary education to stay in public hands and under public control.
Another concern that we have is the decrease in affordable post-secondary EDUCATION. That issue is very dear to the hearts of our members. At just about every meeting our members, no matter where they work, express their fear for the future of their children, particularly the declining number of jobs available to them. Our members feel that the best way to secure a job for their children is to fight to keep their own jobs for the next generation and also to give their children an opportunity to receive Post-Secondary education at a college or at a university. This is a very real concern for our membership.
Related to these concerns is our membership's concern about what they see as the federal government's backing away from its responsibility to fund and make accessible to every Canadian, no matter where they live, quality post-secondary EDUCATION. Those are the three issues we will expand on today.
Ms Cathy Remus, Research Officer, Canadian Union of Public Employees: We will start with a discussion of why we think it is important to have a public system of Post-Secondary education.
Our members have seen privatization occur on campuses in many different ways. For example, senior management are expected to function more like corporate managers than like academic leaders; administrators who have outside interests and holdings in the business world are more concerned about those interests than they are about their responsibilities on campus; research and EDUCATION programs are assessed for their commercial viability; faculty members are increasingly encouraged to become entrepreneurs as part of their job descriptions; there is downward pressure on staff wages; infrastructure is used to enhance competitiveness; focus is on the commercial research product rather than on the EDUCATION being offered; and, finally, program restructuring and restructuring of missions of universities are mostly aimed at attracting external private revenue. Those are some examples we have seen.
We know that there is no longer any debate about the importance of Post-Secondary education. All kinds of studies from all kinds of places are acknowledging that Canada needs an postated work force, that more and more jobs require higher EDUCATION. The debate now is whether a private system can deliver the kind of EDUCATION needed in today's economy. We argue that it cannot and we try to lay out the reasons in the brief.
The first issue we talk about is the affordability of a public system. The first question that is asked is: Well, it would be nice, but can we afford it? CUPE, along with other organizations from many different sectors, is involved in a process called an alternative federal budget process. That process has produced in the last two years an alternative federal budget which has included restored and increased federal spending on Post-Secondary education, a national system of grants to help students cope with the rising costs of tuition, books and other expenses, and increased funding for First Nations EDUCATION.
The alternative budget looks at how to finance policies and measures through tax reform and at a strategy to enhance economic growth. Again this year Post-Secondary education will be included as part of that alternative federal budget process.
Second, we argue that a private system would not offer the same quality of EDUCATION that a public system would offer. We think the role that Post-Secondary education plays in terms of providing Canada with an informed electorate, community leaders, professionals, artists, research and development, a caring community where each member contributes to his or her fullest ability and a transfer of knowledge into the economy is a broad role and a broad mandate which can only be delivered through a public system. We think a private system would have a much narrower mandate focused on shorter-term goals.
With growing dependence on private funds for Post-Secondary education we see choices being made to offer courses and to restructure institutions according to corporate priorities, business priorities, rather than the priorities of the broader community or even the needs of students.
It is interesting to look at what is happening at Carleton University right now, where there is a big restructuring initiative occurring, looking at change and at what Carleton's mission should be. What they are talking about is a decision to focus on two marketable programs linked to private sector demand. One program would focus on the high-tech industry, and the second one would focus on public policy consulting, with a view to providing consultants on public policy issues because Carleton is located in Ottawa.
It is interesting to look at what is driving that process. The needs of students are not being considered. Students have not been consulted, nor has the broader Ottawa community. The high-tech community is happy with the changes being contemplated because their needs will be met. However, we would argue that universities and colleges must look beyond the needs of one part of society and find a way to incorporate business needs along with the needs of other groups. I would encourage honourable senators to examine the situation right here at Carleton University.
We are not arguing that universities and colleges should not be as efficient and effective as possible, but we think it is possible to do that within a public system.
The last issue relating to quality is the predictability of funding. Universities and colleges can only plan for the future and plan to offer a broad EDUCATION if they have predictable long-term funding, and predictable long-term funding is only possible in the public sector. It is not possible in the private sector because its goals are more short term.
Another problem with privatization is accountability. We argue, frankly, that accountability does not exist with a privatized system, and we have seen plenty of examples to support our argument. Increasingly, we have seen companies come on campus to deliver a service. Because they have a private contract, rules of confidentiality apply. The people who pay for the university's business -- students through their tuition fees and taxpayers through their taxes -- have no right to the details of those contracts. The contracts are protected by law. In terms of making this publicly-offered program accountable to the public, there is a big problem with privatization.
Another reason that we argue for a public system is the economic impact that universities and colleges have on their communities. We argue that it is up to governments to look after the local, regional and the national economies and that, therefore, institutions such as universities and colleges need to be incorporated into government's plans for dealing with local economic issues.
Public sector spending, including spending through the post-secondary system, is vitally important to the economy. Colleges and universities play important roles in the local, regional, provincial and national economies. They make contributions to industry and are very often the largest employers in their communities. We cannot ignore the impact of public cuts on those local economies.
A study by the Council of Ontario Universities found that every dollar spent by the Ontario government on Ontario universities generated four dollars worth of economic activity. The study further estimated that a 20 per cent cut to university grants in 1994 would have saved the provincial government $376 million, but would have had a total negative economic impact of over $1 billion. When we make a decision at the federal level, we have to think about the impact of that decision at the local level.
Dealing with the issues of accessibility and affordability, CUPE believes that all Canadians should be entitled to high-quality, affordable, post-secondary EDUCATION. Governments are openly admitting nowadays that they are passing the cost of Post-Secondary education on to individual students and their families, the argument being that it is the individual who benefits from post-secondary EDUCATION. We argue that society benefits as much as does the individual. We can all think of people in our lives whose post-secondary training has benefited us as much as it has benefited them. Think of your plumber, your lawyer, your doctor, the nurse in the emergency ward, or the city planner who planned the street that you live on. Those people all benefited from their post-secondary EDUCATION, but perhaps we benefited just as much.
Individuals with higher EDUCATION draw less from society as well. Studies show that they tend to be healthier, that they use the public health system less than people who do not have Post-Secondary education.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: That is not right; they use it more. We will come back to that.
Ms Remus: They are less likely to draw on programs like unemployment insurance and social assistance. They are more likely to participate in the economy because they tend to earn higher wages. They are more likely to be out there buying houses and cars and participating in economic activity.
Rising tuition fees are a problem, and they are a direct result of government cuts. They are a significant contributor to inflation, which we find very interesting. When the CPI statistics come out, tuition fees are always there as one of the significant contributors to inflation.
We argue that a national public program of student assistance is necessary. It is just not realistic to think that the banks will put the needs of students before the needs of their own shareholders. Their role is to look after their shareholders. Only through a national system will students across the country have the level of assistance they need.
We recommend that we go back to a grant-based system of student assistance as opposed to a loan-based system. We think a grant-based system enhances accessibility, especially for groups who traditionally have not participated in the system. We are opposed to income-contingent student loans. We see this reform of student assistance as inherently unfair because it will mean that people with lower earnings potential will pay more for their EDUCATION than with people with higher earnings potential.
There is an equity issue involved here as well. Women will pay more for their EDUCATION, people of colour will pay for more for their EDUCATION, disabled people will pay more for their EDUCATION because they will have to pay more interest than the people who do not need a loan in the first place or who can pay their loans off quickly. There are inherent equity issues in this whole concept. We need flexible payment plans, interest relief and debt relief, but income-contingent loans are not the way to go.
We in CUPE are disturbed about the lack of federal action in developing national standards for social programs. We know that provincial governments are responsible constitutionally for EDUCATION and that it is important that provinces be involved in setting national standards. However, we would like to see both levels of government coming to an agreement on how to deliver the kind of EDUCATION system that Canada needs.
In our brief we list a number of reasons that the federal government should be involved in Post-Secondary education. One, Post-Secondary education is a key component of a national labour market strategy. Two, post-secondary institutions are centres for learning and for labour market training and personal development, engines of research and regional development, and major employers. Therefore, they have a significant impact on local and regional economies as well as on the national economy. Three, the federal government should provide leadership in ensuring that Canadians are able to acquire the skills and knowledge needed to function effectively in this rapidly changing environment.
We recommend that the federal role in financing Post-Secondary education and in setting national standards be defined in legislation. If anyone thinks the federal role in spending is not important, they have only to look at the impact of the CHST. It has already had impact on the quality, on the amount of money available to the post-secondary system and on the quality of EDUCATION being offered by universities and colleges. It is not too early to evaluate the effects of the CHST.
The federal spending power is being criticized a great deal these days, but we have not yet heard a better idea. If the provinces were more involved with the federal government in setting national standards, then the federal spending power might not be as problematic.
If Quebec desires separate arrangements, there should be separate arrangements for Quebec. That does not mean that every province should get what Quebec gets. Basically, we think it would be workable to have an arrangement for Quebec and an arrangement for the other provinces if the other provinces so desire.
As to what kind of national standards, we agree with those listed in Senator Bonnell's study notes. We think they are a good starting point. I will just read them for the record.
1. Post-Secondary education should be publicly funded.
2. Post-Secondary education should be affordable and accessible.
3. Students should be guaranteed mobility from province to province.
4. Our higher EDUCATION system should be comprehensive.
5. Courses taken at one institution should be transferable.
We think those should be discussed with the provinces in a public forum, similar to what is happening now with the ministerial council. The provinces do not have a mandate from the public for the kinds of negotiations they are entering into now. We think there should be public involvement. We recommend the establishment of a national advisory council on Post-Secondary education, which could be a reference group during negotiations.
The Chairman: I note that you believe in a grant-based system. Do you have any specific proposals as to how that would work?
Ms Remus: The alternative federal budget does show a way to fund that system. It would probably be needs tested. In other times we would have argued for a non-means-tested grant program which all students could access to cover tuition as well as housing and other costs, but in these times a needs-tested program would be great.
The Chairman: Have you conducted any research on the effectiveness of the EDUCATIONal provisions in our income tax system? Are the dposttions and tax credits making Post-Secondary education more affordable?
Ms Ballantyne: We have not done any specific research on the different tax exemptions, credits and so forth. We believe that there are inequities built into the tax system and that we should be looking at who benefits right now from the tax advantages, especially the tuition rebate credit, or whatever it is called. We have not done any specific research. We have a working group looking at that question, so it is built into our alternative finance proposals.
Ms Remus: During the social security review we looked at the idea of registered EDUCATION savings plans, because that was one of the proposals on the table at the time. We were not happy when we looked at who could actually afford to have RSPs, which goes to the equity issues we were discussing earlier.
Senator Forest: You mentioned Carleton University's focus on the high-tech area. Certainly I would agree with you that there needs to be a broader base than that. In Alberta we have a Post-Secondary educational group that looks at what certain colleges can do better than others. Lethbridge has great programs for aboriginals, Olds College and Lakeland College for agriculture, Grande Prairie Regional College for oil research and development, and so on. That is a good system because it makes the best use of the best resources. All of these facilities offer other programs, but they offer the ones that they can do best. It also does away with duplication.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: When you say when people are --
[Translation]
...are more postated, they cost the State less money because they do not use health care services as often. I would ask you to verify this statement. The studies I have seen do not necessarily show the opposite to be the case. However, the less fortunate quite possibly use EDUCATION programs and health care services the least.
[English]
The less fortunate wait until they have a broken leg and they can no longer walk. It is a myth that the poor are always in hospital and getting all kinds of care; one must be careful about that.
Ms Remus: It would be interesting to look at which services we are talking about. We know that emergency room care is more expensive than scheduled care with one's own physician.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: This too should be looked at.
Ms Remus: Studies have shown a link between unemployment and sickness.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: But that is a different thing. We are talking about Post-Secondary education or no Post-Secondary education. You were saying that the more EDUCATION one has, the less costly they will be to society. I am not sure about that.
Ms Remus: Your chances of being unemployed are much smaller. The link is between unemployment and health care.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: In terms of the public services that you were referring to, I cannot agree with you.
Are you saying that there should be no private EDUCATION system? I certainly support the idea of a public system which is affordable and accessible to everyone. However, a private system might be preferred for certain areas of training. I am not sure that we should do away with everything that is labelled "private."
Ms Remus: Our position is more that public money should not be spent to generate private profit.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: I agree with that.
Senator Andreychuk: Are you opposed to all privatization? I do not think anyone has argued against a blended system. Do you not think you would be better arguing that, if certain segments are to be privatized, there should be some government scrutiny and some standards set?
Ms Ballantyne: The point we are trying to make is that we are seeing on campuses an alarming trend toward universities and colleges becoming commercial centres. Ancillary services, such as food services and book stores, are being operated by private enterprise. Those are visible changes, but a lot is going on that is not as visible. Universities are desperate for funds and will look to whatever source is available to them.
We do believe that the private and corporate sectors have a role to play in funding Post-Secondary education because they draw direct benefits. What really concerns us is the kind of direct funding that is taking place, often in the form of confidential commercial contracts between the institution or individual faculty members or, in some cases, our own members and research assistants and sessional lecturers. The nature of these transactions is quite alarming.
The research, which is being conducted in a publicly-funded institution, does not necessarily benefit the general public because it is being done for a particular corporation for a particular corporate need. We are also alarmed that there does not seem to be any public debate about this issue. That is why we are so pleased that this committee is looking at the issue of post-secondary EDUCATION.
It is not that post-secondary institutions should not meet the needs of the private sector, particularly the labour market needs. It is how those arrangements come about, In both universities and colleges, decisions are made behind closed doors where the community-at-large is not able to participate.
The governance systems of universities are already fairly private. We think that contributes to the general view of universities as being elite institutions which, in turn, works against the universities themselves.
Senator Andreychuk: Many publicly funded institutions are accountable by virtue of governing boards and senates on which there are community representatives. I know the two universities in Saskatchewan have community representation, including unions, on their boards. Their members are free to identify different issues and have from time to time generated debate and held hearings on those issues.
I appreciate that university boards seem to be meeting all the time and that it is difficult for the public to understand their systems, but I do not think it is any more complex than understanding how a government system operates. What is so unique about the university system?
Ms Ballantyne: What is probably different is that, unlike hospitals and unlike the health care system in general, the majority of Canadians still do not have direct involvement in universities. There is a sort of mystique about universities in the minds of a lot of Canadians. It is true that some boards of governors are opening up and there is a sort of democratization taking place, but there are also appointments and it is not clear who makes them. In our own experience when our members have been appointed to boards of governors, we fought and won the right to representation on a number of different boards, but we have not won the right to choose our own representatives. There is not necessarily an accountability of those individuals back to our union or to the larger community. I think there is a lot of work to be done there.
Our members who sit on these different boards complain that much of the business is still done in such a way that they do not feel that they are necessarily given all the facts. This is an issue that must be dealt with in order to win greater public support for the institutions and for the system. It is certainly a barrier that we have faced within our own membership.
Senator DeWare: We are talking about universities who, probably because of cutbacks in funding, have decided that they have to function for the least cost and, therefore, have decided to privatize their cafeteria or their book store. That means that a company comes in and takes over and does it at their costs rather than at the university's costs in order to save funds. You can see why that is happening across the country. Your concern is the foothold which that particular company is getting into the university process; is that what you are saying?
Ms Remus: In many cases the service declines, and that is a big concern. Students are expected to pay more and more for a declining service.
Senator DeWare: You can see why it had to happen. If the federal government is cutting back the transfer payments to universities, then the universities are probably saying, "We must raise tuitions by an exorbitant amount or we must look at these other means."
Ms Remus: Another thing is that sometimes there are false savings. Let us take maintenance for example. In more and more universities the infrastructures are seriously declining because there is no money to refurbish. Instead of using in-house maintenance staff, as has been done traditionally, outside contractors are being called in. There are increasing complaints about the quality of the work being done, and the in-house staff have to around and patch and monitor the work.
It is questionable whether real savings are being achieved, and we cannot find out because those records are secret.
Senator DeWare: Are students being hired in these privatized areas? The whole idea of cafeterias and bookstores and maintenance is to make sure the students have an opportunity to earn money to help with their tuition.
Ms Remus: Students always did this work in the past. At Carleton CUSA, the student association, always provided the jobs for students on campus, but they have had to cut jobs because their money is declining. Privatization is not improving the employment situation for students at all; in fact, there are fewer student jobs on campus.
Senator DeWare: Would the private companies not be hiring the students?
Ms Ballantyne: That is an interesting question. A number of universities have worked with our own union on campuses to negotiate collective agreement provisions which would allow the university to give preferential hiring treatment to students for part-time jobs. We have negotiated these provisions, recognizing that the university is an important place of employment for university students. As services become privatized, the university loses its role as employer and can no longer control employment policies, unless it is able to negotiate that right with the private contractor. As you said, this whole move toward privatization has come about because people are looking for savings. When you are in a desperate situation, you are not in a position to start imposing a lot of conditions on a private contractor.
As governments hand larger and larger parts of the economy over to the private sector, it loses its levers to effect employment practices. That is what is starting to happen on the campuses.
Senator DeWare: That is an interesting point. Our concern is that students have the opportunity to attend university or college and to earn at the same time. What you are telling us today is that the opportunity to earn that extra money is disappearing on campuses. I am glad you raised that point, because it is important that we know that.
The Chairman: What does CUPE consider a manageable amount of student debt?
Ms Ballantyne: That will vary. I can tell you that the average annual income of our members is between $24,000 and $26,000 per year. Our members, relative to other workers doing similar work, are well paid because they are employed in union jobs, but union jobs in this country are getting few and far between. The level of manageable debt for somebody earning between $24,000 and $26,000 per year is not very high.
Senator DeWare: How many people does CUPE represent?
Ms Ballantyne: We represent 450,000 workers across Canada and 40,000 in the university and college system. We are the largest union in Canada.
The Chairman: What position does CUPE take on the tenure which some university professors have?
Ms Ballantyne: We do not represent faculty members. We represent sessional lecturers, who do not have tenure, and teaching assistants who are graduate students employed by the university and are limited in the number of hours they can work in a week. None of our members has tenure.
The Chairman: In any event, do you have any comments on tenure?
Ms Ballantyne: We appreciate the defence of tenure put forward by faculty associations and unions around issues of academic freedom. We believe that tenure is absolutely essential to safeguard academic freedom. Many of these provisions are negotiated between faculty associations or unions and the university employers, and those provisions, like all negotiated provisions, should be respected.
Since we do not represent faculty members, we don't feel that we can comment any further on the issue of tenure. We have no policy in that regard.
It is a sensitive issue within our campuses. I am sure you appreciate that, as universities cut back and have to stretch the dollars among employees and make choices as to which employees to keep and which employees to lay off, our experience has been that our members are out the door first. This definitely creates tensions among employee groups on our campuses.
We have worked very hard with different employee groups and students on each campus to find areas of common concern. We all believe that the quality of Post-Secondary education system must be preserved. We are working together to try to find ways of doing that without undercutting each other in negotiations or in other forums.
The committee adjourned.