Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs,
Science and Technology
Subcommittee on Post-Secondary education
Issue 5 - Evidence - Morning sitting
VANCOUVER, Monday, February 10, 1997
The Subcommittee on Post-Secondary education of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 8:55 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 and students, please take a seat around the table. We will open the program this morning with each of us, in turn, saying who we are, where we came from, what college or university we represent and perhaps what courses are being studied.
My name is Lorne Bonnell. I tell people I come from the birthplace of the nation -- Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. It may be the smallest province, but it is where Canada was born. After we were born, we put the country together and sent a couple of New Brunswickers out to develop the West Coast. One fellow called Nicholson was the Lieutenant Governor; another called "Wacky" Bennett became your Premier.
British Columbia took after New Brunswick, and developed beyond where New Brunswick is today; and Prince Edward Island is still a beautiful little island surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean.
After we introduce ourselves, I will turn the meeting over to Senator Perrault.
Ms Jill Anne Joseph, Clerk of the committee: My name is Jill Anne Joseph. I handle the administrative, procedural, logistical and public relations support for this committee.
Senator Forest: I am Jean Forest from Edmonton, Alberta. I have a long history in EDUCATION. I was a school teacher, a school trustee and a governor; also, I was the Chancellor of the University of Alberta. I am very interested in what the students have to say this morning.
Ms Parte: My name is Maura Parte. I am a student at the University of Victoria, where I am studying history.
Mr. Gardiner: My name is Michael Gardiner. I am a University of Victoria student, studying economics and political science. I am currently on leave from my studies to assume a full-time position as provincial chairperson of the Canadian Federation of Students - British Columbia.
Senator Perrault: Ray Perrault, born and raised in British Columbia.
Mr. Veerkamp: Mark Veerkamp. I am an economics student at Simon Fraser University.
Ms Szasz: My name is Linda Szasz, and I study at the Emily Carr Institute of Art and Design. My focus is painting.
Mr. Mealey: My name is Rob Mealey. I am a university transfer student at North Island College, the Port Alberni campus.
Mr. Albanese: My name is Julian Albanese. I am studying political studies at Capilano College.
Mr. Williams: My name is Dave Williams. I am a BCIT student president. I am presently studying building technology.
Mr. Rabinovitch: My name is Murray Rabinovitch. I am a student at the King Edward Campus of Vancouver Community College.
Ms Foroutan: My name is Shirin Foroutan. I am a student at the University of British Columbia. I am doing a double major in international relations and political science.
Senator Andreychuk: I am Raynell Andreychuk from Regina, Saskatchewan. My interest in this committee results from years of academic involvement in the university system in Saskatchewan, including Chancellor of the University of Regina, and chairing a number of task forces to do with setting goals and aims and changes in universities.
My interest is also in international foreign policy, having been posted overseas. The type of EDUCATION that students need for the next millennium is a concern that I have, from a trade, investment, job and student perspective.
Ms Leung: I am Jasmin Leung from City Centre Campus, Vancouver Community College. I am studying tourism.
Mr. Keurdian: I am Mihran Keurdian. I am a student at Capilano College.
Mr. Petratur: I am Joe Petratur. I am here from the Graduate Students Society at the University of Victoria. I am doing a Masters in Public Administration.
The Chairman: Before we start and I turn the chair over to Senator Perrault, I thought I should put things into perspective by saying that I know you know what a parliamentarian is, but many people in Ottawa do not. A parliamentarian is not only an MP who comes from British Columbia or from some other province, who are MPs or members of the House of Commons who are voted for every time. A Member of Parliament is a member of the House of Commons, a member of the Senate, and the Governor General. So although we are senators, we are all MPs.
I am now going to suggest that you become senators. You can skip being a member of the House of Commons and become a senator.
The Senate passed a resolution to study Post-Secondary education in Canada, and probably for the first time in the 25 years that I have been there, every single senator, regardless of political faith, background, religion or sex voted in favour of the study of EDUCATION in Canada, to set it for the 21st century.
Our job is to make strong recommendations back to the Senate and from the Senate back to the government. I will make you all senators this morning and we will start off with, not my good friend Senator Forest from Alberta, but next to her, my good friend Senator Parte, to say what she would recommend if she were a senator.
Senator Perrault will act as the coordinator, and I will sit back and listen to everyone's views. Perhaps I will include all of the recommendations in my report, so that we now will have some real changes in EDUCATION in Canada. So, senator, go for it.
Ms Parte: Honourable senators, I do not wish to take up all of the time, because I know there will be some excellent recommendations from other students coming forward today.
I will start the ball rolling by talking about the Canada Student Loans Program and some recommendations that we would like to make.
Many students today are graduating with excessive debt levels, often in the range of $30,000 or $40,000. The Canadian average is now at $17,000, a substantial increase over the last five years.
I would be pleased to see the government step towards creating special opportunity grants for the higher levels of EDUCATION for women in doctoral studies. More attention also needs to be focused on the expansion of the grant system at the undergraduate level.
I strongly suggest that the Senate recommend to the government that it make a concerted effort to look at the Canada Student Loans Program with a view to coming up with a grant system that allows more students to attend post-secondary institutions.
At the present time, the federal government is looking at a loan remissions program that would allow students, upon graduation, to remit some of their incurred debt in accordance with how long it has taken them to complete their term of study, as well as other personal responsibility factors.
The reason we are taking in debt is the increasing tuition fees that have occurred over the last few years, coupled with a more costly standard of living and the difficulty students have finding summer employment, even part-time employment when attending an institution.
Overall, my recommendations are to look at the loans program, expansion of grants and employment for students. Others present will expand on those recommendations.
Senator Perrault: I thank the students for appearing and our chairman, who has been battling for a long while to bring this to the attention of Parliament and before the Canadian people. We are glad to have you out here, Mr. Chairman.
The order of reference that we have been mandated by the Senate to discuss is as follows:
That, while respecting provincial constitutional responsibilities, the committee be authorized to examine and report upon the state of Post-Secondary education in Canada, including the review of:
(a) the national, regional, provincial and local goals of the Canadian Post-Secondary education system;
(b) the social, cultural, economic and political importance of post-secondary EDUCATION to Canada;
(c) the roles of federal, provincial and territorial governments;
(d) the ability of Canadian universities and colleges to respond to the new, emerging EDUCATIONal marketplace including the changing curriculum and new technologies, distance, continuing and cooperative EDUCATION, and adult and part-time EDUCATION; and
(e) the Canada Student Loans Program and the different provincial and territorial student financial assistance programs as well as the growing concern over student indebtedness; and to identify areas of greater cooperation between all levels of government, the private sector and EDUCATIONal institutions.
We have until 10:30 to cover this ground. We want this to be as democratic a meeting as we possible can have. We are at the present time discussing student finance and student debt. Are there other contributors to this particular aspect of the discussion?
Ms Szasz: I have seen many television commercials lately for banking institutions and investment houses, because it is RRSP time. It is going to be many years before I can seriously look at contributing to an RRSP. I wondered if there were a plan related to student repayment that was similar to RRSPs, where the student loan repayment could be dpostted from the income tax. For students who are facing large debts and who have to pay tax on top of the money they are repaying at high interest rates, it would be an incentive.
Senator Perrault: You are talking about a tax dposttion?
Ms Szasz: Yes.
Senator Perrault: Are there any other comments on this particular point of student debt and what should be done about it?
Mr. Williams: I have a feeling that you should look at what is causing student debt. I do not think it is the cost of EDUCATION. It is the cost of living while going to school, the cost of food and lodging. Some of our students drive half an hour or an hour every day, which adds up to quite a cost.
Not only is it the cost of living, but also the cost of the technology required to go school. I was talking to a friend at Acadia who told me that they were now paying $1,200 to the school for the use of a laptop computer. Over four years, that amounts to $4,800, and they do not keep the laptop at the end.
Senator Perrault: That is for access to the laptop?
Mr. Williams: That is strictly for access to the laptop, to my understanding. It is a joke to pay $4,800 for a laptop you do not keep. I can understand perhaps paying $100 to upgrade the school to be able to access your laptop, but to not be able to keep a laptop after paying $4,800 raises some serious questions. I question taking a student loan out for that cost. Is that a valid way to be spending money?
Senator Perrault: That is an inordinately high amount of money for access to a laptop computer.
Mr. Williams: It is another barrier to EDUCATION. Also, look at how many single parents are coming back to school and taking student loans. How much of that student loan is going to pay for day care so they can attend school? The question that should be asked is: Where is the money for student loans going? I do not think it is going to the EDUCATION field. If you look at where that money is going, you may be surprised to discover where a lot of the student loan money is going.
Senator Perrault: Are there any other views on this particular point? There are so many aspects of EDUCATION to be covered.
Mr. Mealey: I wish to make a comment about why we should be looking to increased grants for student. I come from Port Alberni, a resourced-based community. EDUCATION is the only hope for many who live in towns like that. In forestry towns, every day more and more people lose their jobs as there are cut-backs in access to timber. More people need to get into college or university.
Senator Perrault: For retraining?
Ms Szasz: For retraining; in order to get new jobs. Unfortunately, I have many friends back home who see the cost of EDUCATION as a huge barrier, one which they do not want to tackle. They feel that the cost of tuition and the costs associated with EDUCATION are so high that it is not worth it.
Senator Perrault: Do you have evidence in your area that young people, and not necessarily only young people, are deterred from attempting to register at school because of the costs?
Mr. Mealey: Yes.
Senator Perrault: They are frightened by the costs.
Mr. Mealey: Myself included. The only reason I have been able to go to school so far is that I have had the opportunity of a summer job. In an area such as Port Alberni, that is very rare. I have been living at home with my parents in order not to have the extra costs of living. Unfortunately, I have done as much as possible in Port Alberni. They do not offer all the classes I need to get a diploma or degree, so now I have to move out. I am looking towards a future that consists of a huge debt. With my background, coming from a town such as Port Alberni, I am scared and frightened about my prospects for the next five, 10 years.
Senator Perrault: That is the one of the reasons we are having this series of meetings across the country scheduled for this month.
Are there any other contributions on this particular point?
Mr. Williams: It would be a novel idea if students could repay their loan debt in community service rather than hard dollars. Instead of having to pay back a financial institution, why not pay back the community in which they live or in which they have lived or in which they took their classes, perhaps in terms of dealing with kids or in terms of working in an old age home.
Senator Perrault: Community service.
Mr. Williams: Community service, whatever it may be; even working in the EDUCATIONal institutes from which they came or the Grade 12 system. It would be a novel approach. It would be a good approach, and one that would get people back into the community. You hear such a big cry about people becoming disenchanted with the community. This would be a way, perhaps, to get them back in. It is something to look at.
Senator Perrault: Are there any comments on this idea?
Ms Parte: One of the areas that needs to be looked at is employment. Community service is great, but today's graduates are looking for jobs, and there are none. For students attempting to earn money to go to school, it is becoming increasingly more difficult to find jobs during the summer. I know that from personal experience, from when, in April and May, I have had to look for a job so that I can save some money for my schooling in September.
When talking about EDUCATION and student loans and debt, there has to be a concerted effort to look at the employment situation in Canada for students, who often are graduating into fields where employment is not permanent but temporary or part-time. That is an area we should focus upon.
Senator Perrault: I think you are correct. I am a graduate of the University of British Columbia, and it was infinitely easier to get summer employment then than it is now. Of course, that was a long time ago, but I can see the real difficulties facing our young people today. It is extremely serious. Parliamentarians feel that something has to be done. One chap said the other day that the situation contains the seeds of social revolt. That may be true. The best postated generation in the history of the country unable to find a secure economic place is a serious matter. Any other comments on this or other points?
Senator Andreychuk: Perhaps I could ask a procedural point. Are we going to hear from the students on each topic, at which time we, as senators, will have an opportunity to question them, or will senators' questions and comments be left until the end?
Senator Perrault: Any senator may intervene. This is an informal way to do it, but it is ultimately democratic.
Senator Andreychuk: No one has mentioned the difficulty of student loans from the perspective that some loans are federally based and some are provincially based. Is there a problem with that, as well as a problem of transferability when going out of province? Is that a concern of students in British Columbia?
Mr. Veerkamp: For most students, transferability is a concern, but it is a secondary concern. I have just graduated. I am not sure about getting a job, and I owe $40,000. That is a major concern and those are the priorities people should be working on. Transferability is a concern, but it is a secondary concern.
Mr. Gardiner: The issue of mobility and federal-provincial coordination of programs is one that will increase in the next few years. We have noticed, both from the side of government and from the side of the borrower, that the inefficiencies over the years have resulted in confusion. We have heard of students repaying their B.C. loan, thinking they were repaying their entire loan, when all of a sudden a collection agent was after them because they had been defaulting on their on Canada Student Loan; they had not realized that they had been missing that half of the payment. There are numerous other examples.
In terms of the transferability and portability from province to province, there are many complications. Each province has different regulations around how its provincial loans program can be transferred. In terms of the Canada Student Loans Program, the Quebec government has a different way of administering it from the rest of the provinces. However, I believe that, for the most part, the Canada Student Loans Program remains portable.
For British Columbian students, the B.C. program has a significant component of grants, particularly in the first two years of study, as well as a loan remission program which takes effect at the end of study. In B.C., students graduate with a much lower provincial debt and a higher Canada Student Loans Program debt. That varies from province to province.
Across the country, equity of student assistance is not a reality. Students in Manitoba or Ontario will graduate with higher debt than students from B.C., based on borrowing the same throughout their period of study. There are definitely some issues that can be addressed through federal-provincial coordination.
It is our fear, given the current bent towards looking for efficiencies, that the move would be to the lowest common denominator in the program. We would hope that if that type of discussion were to occur it would be to move to the highest common denominator, recognizing that the Canada is currently the only country in the OECD that does not have a program of national grants.
Senator Perrault: You believe that there are disparities among the provinces on the whole burden of EDUCATIONal cost?
Mr. Gardiner: Not in terms of EDUCATIONal cost itself; but in terms of the student loan debt upon graduation, there are disparities. There are also disparities related to portability, whether a student from British Columbia is able to study in Ontario.
Senator Perrault: We have this continuing problem that EDUCATION is a provincial responsibility and that provincial governments jealously guard their rights. It is difficult to establish national standards in some cases.
Senator Andreychuk: A number of people have talked about alleviation of repayment and some unique ways of looking at it. One of the problems of going back from strict repayment and delaying repayment or cushioning the interest on the carrying charge is the fact that other students do not take out loans but their families provide their EDUCATION, or they borrow from relatives.
In other words, there is a cost of EDUCATION that is being taken up and has an impact on society in Canada. How would we equalize that? Have you given that any thought? Is that an issue in the community?
Mr. Rabinovitch: To me, one of the things we have to look at is the practicality of different solutions. One of the funding options that would be reasonably practical is that at least the interest part of the loans not exist.
Senator Perrault: So a forgiveness on that section, however it is termed.
Mr. Rabinovitch: The cost of forgiving loans in total would be enormous. While it would be nice if all EDUCATION were free, and even if the cost of living were free while you were going to school, I do not think the practicality is there, but the interest end is.
Funding for part-time students is a very important aspect. It is extremely difficult to get any sort of funding for part-time work, and part-time work is necessary for a wide variety of reasons. In my case, although I do not wish to focus on myself, it is simply at this stage an inability to carry a full-time load. However, there are many different reasons. Some people are out working and can only take a small number of courses. Even though they are working it is quite often difficult to fund their EDUCATION and their living at the same time.
Another issue is information. It would be helpful if we had a some sort of information about what sort of funding was available from all sources, as well what was required to qualify for scholarships that are offered at various institutions, not only government ones.
Senator Perrault: That information is not properly organized and available?
Mr. Rabinovitch: Not at all, to my knowledge.
Senator Perrault: Part of our mandate is to look at new technologies: distance, continuing and cooperative EDUCATION. Is there a way that we can make it easier for people to access Post-Secondary education, adapting some of the potential of the virtual university?
I went to Simon Fraser a few months ago and was enthralled by the description of how they are going to offer certain courses using computer technology and satellites. Is there potential in this area? Is it feasible or is this a far-out concept. Does anyone have any information on that?
Mr. Williams: It is a feasible concept, but I am concerned about the issue of human interaction. Interacting with students, learning to be accepting of them and who they are is not learned through a computer. That can only be learned through dealing with people. You cannot develop patience in dealing with people and learn how to communicate with people from a computer. If that is the way we are going to go, I would be very leery about that, because I personally enjoy interacting with people.
Senator Perrault: Even interactive television has limited potential, is what you are saying?
Mr. Williams: It is a good tool and one that should definitely be considered in providing access to students in places such as Northern B.C., Northern Alberta, the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, so that they do not have to be uprooted.
Senator Perrault: And go to boarding schools.
Mr. Williams: And go to boarding schools. In that sense, it is not bad to be uprooted because you learn about various Canadian cultures. In terms of that experience, I do not believe enough people have been uprooted.
Senator Perrault: Senator Forest is an postator. Senator, may we have your views?
Senator Forest: I wish to react to some of the comments the students have made. I have attended all the hearings in the Ottawa area, and certainly the areas that you have touched upon have been the same ones about which we have heard from other students. We have also heard from the departments. The confusion with regard to provincial and federal loans and grants programs is beginning to be worked on. It is realized that there has to be a one-stop shopping approach so that students will know where they are coming from.
We also heard from the banks. Some of us gave them a rather rough time. They talked about all their investments and about investing in the future and what they could do for students with respect to their student loans. We were interested to learn about some of the programs that they do have. The banks can do a lot more. They are gaining clients through these students loans and there is much more they can do.
Many of these topics have been discussed, and it is interesting to me to see, from one side of the country to the other, that student concerns are the same.
I would like to discuss some of the other topics on our agenda. We realize that concerns around student financing are front and centre, but we are also interested in the other topics that Senator Perrault mentioned.
Senator Perrault: What will be the role of our colleges and universities in the 21st century?
What should this committee of the Senate include in its report on the subject of research and development?
On your list of priorities, what is the number one recommendation or the area of recommendation to the Senate? Are students loans at the top?
Mr. Albanese: Funding.
Senator Perrault: The consensus is that funding is the number one concern.
Mr. Albanese: That is the primary need that we require in order to have a good public Post-Secondary education system. If we do not have funding, everything else falls by the wayside. Having loans for infrastructure that does not function does not do any good.
In relation to computers and technology being the saviour of our EDUCATION system --
Senator Perrault: Or a helper.
Mr. Albanese: It can be a helper, I agree. It should not be a way to back out of our commitment. I am the chairperson of our student union. The formative time that students spend at schools to develop awareness of citizenry, the skills to interact with other students, the ability to exercise their rights, and that type of learning, is more important than the information accrued during your time at school. Learning how to interact with other people is fundamental to your sense of self-worth. Those things should not be underestimated in EDUCATION. They are very important.
Although the pedagogical relationship with your instructor is very important. all of the information does not spew from an instructor's voice, as people who have been instructors here know. It comes from the students all around. You hear diverse views; you interact with those people and learn tremendously from those interactions. A transition to the computer screen will not save all those things. It is valuable for some training courses where distance is a problem, but I would argue that the fundamentals of EDUCATION are beyond that. They are deeper than that and should not be overlooked when looking to the future.
Senator Perrault: Are there any other comments on this point?
Ms Foroutan: I attend UBC and I would like to address the topic of research and development. I am an arts major. Every time I hear the words "research and development", I cringe. Arts is the most neglected faculty. Every time a dollar is moved into research and development at the graduate level, the Faculty of Arts is pushed aside. There has to be a balance.
UBC is the largest university in this province. It is an undergraduate university, but not only for the sciences or commence. Arts cannot be neglected. A balance must be found with regard to where the funding that we are receiving is going.
Martha Piper comes from the University of Alberta. She has a Ph.D. in sciences and she is setting the agenda for a research and development university. There also has to be some priority for the undergraduate level.
Senator Perrault: A good statement on behalf of the arts.
The Chairman: There is another student loan issue that I would like to throw out for discussion. There are summer jobs; there are part-time jobs at university, such as working with undergraduates and receiving pay for that; also cooperative EDUCATION, where a student may work for an engineering firm all summer long and then take postgraduate courses in engineering that suits that particular firm and upon graduation go to work in that particular field.
Last year, many engineers graduated but only 10 per cent of them found a good job. Many teachers graduated last year, but less than 10 per cent found jobs. Many lawyers are graduating, and you can hire a lawyer today full-time for very little money because there are no jobs for them. We are surrounded by lawyers, so they are suing each other now to make a living.
Senator Andreychuk: Is this a question? Do I get equal time on behalf of the all the lawyers of Canada?
The Chairman: It seems to me that we should be thinking about cooperative EDUCATION, where students work for a company and then participate in further study suited the needs of that company and then go right to work in the top bracket of that company upon graduation. Has anyone thought about that type of EDUCATION?
Mr. Gardiner: Co-op EDUCATION has been around U-Vic for a long time, and it is a good thing, but it does not quite work like that. A lot of people do get into the co-op programs. The reality of co-op programs, however, is that a lot of students find themselves in the position of having no guarantee of employment once they complete their studies. They find themselves out there with the rest of the students, the non-co-op students, looking for employment. That is the reality of the marketplace.
Ms Szasz: At the Emily Carr Institute, we do animation partnering with the job market or the industry. Tremendous pressure is put on the school to pour resources into expensive technologies, computers and programs in order to train those students for the workforce. It is unfortunate that the pressure is solely on the institution to train students for the job market and not on the employers to do any training.
Senator Perrault: Are we coordinating the needs of the marketplace with our training and EDUCATION?
Mr. Williams: I would like to pick up on the co-op.
Every time I talk about co-op to my faculty and to the advisory committees, they shun it. It is very expensive for companies to participate in co-op programs. A student is taken into a company, and from the company's point of view, the student knows nothing. They have been to school; they know how to learn. The company considers it a burden because they have to set aside resources to integrate that person into the company. It takes time to become part of the fabric of the company. Many times, I hear: "You have been to school; you have been postated. Good. You only know about 20 per cent of what you actually need to know to succeed."
If we are only learning 20 per cent of what we need to apply ourselves in the job market and we are spending so much money to do it, there is a problem. Are we learning the correct things? We constantly hear that students do not know how to communicate their ideas. "They have learned to write papers -- great. They do not know how to work in a team environment." I hear that constantly and I wonder what we are doing wrong. If this is what industry is saying, perhaps we should be looking at teaching. If we are not learning those communication skills and teamwork skills, maybe we should be teaching another way.
Cooperative EDUCATION has a lot to offer, but industry has to be brought on side. Industry must be consulted as to what it will take for it to be worthwhile to incorporate a particular student into the fabric of your company so that when he or she graduates, they can go to work right away at that company.
For some students, it takes two or three years to hit their stride. That is an issue that needs to be looked at. Perhaps there is a reason industry is being shy. Have you asked industry representatives what their views are about what they are getting in the end result?
Senator Perrault: I hope we have testimony on that point during the course of our hearings. It would be very useful.
Mr. Rabinovitch: What the Senate committee is doing here is fantastic, and I certainly appreciate it. However, we are not starting at the beginning; we are starting in the middle. What should be done first is an in-depth evaluation of what it is we should be learning.
Having student leaders here is fine, but I do not think in the truest sense that we are representative of Canadian society. I am not suggesting that the whole Senate committee go out and talk to individuals randomly around the country. But someone on your behalf should be doing so. This type of hearing to address the needs should probably be done after the fundamentals are done.
In our society in general, we tend not to start at the beginning but in the middle when we are looking for solutions to problems, et cetera. We also tend to treat the results of problems rather than the problems. What I mean by that is say we have a given group in our society -- and I am not going to single out any particular group -- that has a set of needs. They tend to be in poverty, they tend to have poor access to EDUCATION, they tend to have a whole set of needs. We take that group, we single it out not based on their needs but based on membership in that group, call them X. X is a group that came from a European country, a group which has have a reasonably common set of problems. We treat X as a group, rather than treating all the people in our society who have those problems. It is not an equitable and a fair solution. The solution is quite often to throw money at them in some manner when their needs are specific EDUCATION or specific counselling.
What this committee is doing is fantastic. However, we have to get back to fundamentals. The people that you have to get input from, not collectively as a committee but through individuals going across the country, are regular Canadians. You should hear from a random sampling. The average Canadian will not come out to a big hall to and speak to these issues. You must find a way of having individual, one-on-one conversations to determine the needs of these people.
Senator Perrault: There will be an effort made to get as much input as possible as the committee moves across the country. The fact that the resolution to establish a committee was carried unanimously in the Senate says something. There is a real concern out there; it is not a party matter at all. We all feel a great deal of concern about the future of the situation.
Mr. Albanese: I am concerned that public institutions, especially public EDUCATIONal institutions, are catering even more to corporate Canada in training employees. I would say that it takes a few years for most employees, regardless of whether or not they have come from a post-secondary institution, to get into their stride within a company. That is the way human beings are. There is probably a good stock of people coming out of our post-secondary EDUCATION institutions, people who have had some training and who have flexible thinking, critical thinking, who could adapt to such an environment. And those things are provided for by programs such as arts programs.
Those skills are necessary in the environment we live in. In terms of the economic paradigm, with industry being so flexible and changing all the time, we need to have flexible and critical thinking, not solely training as though we are robots going off into the workforce.
Industry or other sections of business in Canada should step forward and provide 100 per cent of the training required for their employees, in some areas, to get them up to speed, not squeeze our public institutions, which unfortunately are starving because progressive taxation is not working. Corporations have deferred their taxes, causing our EDUCATION institutions to starve. The corporations can then apply pressure to the institutions, to mould them into institutions that provide them with what they want.
That does not benefit Canada as a whole; it is very short-sighted and limited in its scope. I hope that that is not the trend adopted in the future and that there would be pressure to keep the integrity of public institutions alive by not having them cater solely to corporate Canada.
Apprenticeship programs are very good. Canadians should have fundamental EDUCATION in relation to many things -- the history of Canada, the history of the world -- and from there enter into an apprenticeship. There has to be some responsibility by the business that is providing that apprenticeship. There has to be pressure on that side as well that the person they have trained is given a job. One of the ways to pressure that business is that if it financed the entire training into the company, then it may be more inclined to reap from those investments it put into an individual.
Senator Perrault: You are concerned that the integrity of the system may be in danger because of the need for money and the closer connection with the corporate community?
Mr. Albanese: In the present environment, corporate Canada seems to be benefiting in relation to social programs, which are starting to starve.
Senator Perrault: Are we coordinating the needs of the marketplace closely enough with the training required and providing it at our universities?
Mr. Albanese: I am not sure that we are.
Senator Perrault: I talked to a cabdriver the other day who told me that he had a Ph.D. in philosophy and could not find work. There is a real worry and concern there.
Mr. Albanese: We might be pressuring the wrong end. Who are the job providers? What are they doing to provide jobs? Are they downsizing? Are they living up to their responsibilities in society?
Senator Perrault: That is a good point. I invite all to participate in this topic.
Mr. Gardiner: In the last two years, I have participated in a process in British Columbia called "Charting a New Course", which brought together college faculty, administration, students and government to develop a vision for the college system into the 21st century. This issue is one we tackled very seriously. We found that corporations have an interest and reasonably promote that interest, as one would expect of a corporation, and that in some cases the interests of the corporate sector, in terms of what it is looking for in employees, are in line with what we should be seeking with our EDUCATION system.
The Conference Board of Canada report talks about employability skills. Employability skills are not the ability to perform specific tasks; employability skills are communication skills, generic skills, the ability to learn and adapt. In discussions about the changing job market, the ability to adapt is seen as essential by both the corporate sector and the public sector and by all the studies that bear out what makes a good employee in the long run.
We also found that corporations have an inherent interest in seeking to download as much of their training responsibilities on to our public institutions as possible. There is a duality of interest that has to be weighed. There has to be some examination into what is an efficient use of our EDUCATION system and who can better train to perform those specific tasks. Can the public sector do that better, or can the private sector through its own training programs, when provided with an individual who has the ability to learn and adapt quickly?
The conclusion of the report was that the EDUCATION system needed to adjust to provide that broad base of EDUCATION. There was also a recommendation that specific job training be available where it makes the most sense for the public sector to run those programs, and that included things like apprenticeship programs, institutional-based training in broader programs such as welding, plumbing and airline mechanics.
Mr. Williams: When schools look for students, do they attempt to enrol them in courses that they know they can provide more cheaply, to offset others that might cost more? I am thinking in terms of a student signing up for a course and paying $300 for a course which only costs the school $100 to run. That gives the school $200, which it then transfers to a course such as physics, for which the charge may be $300 but it costs them $400 to run it.
There needs to be an accountability for where the students are enrolled. Students should not be enrolled in areas where there is no possibility of employment -- and I do not even know if employment is the right idea. I think that some students who are enrolled at school for the purpose of securing employment in a particular area may be setting themselves up for a bit of a fall, too. I am throwing out a very broad idea: that there has to be accountability across the board so that philosophy courses are not inundated with students if there are no jobs in philosophy. There should not be students taking four years of philosophy and not even be thinking about what they will do -- although perhaps they are just there for the ride; I do not know. There needs to be an accountability built into the system so that we are not wasting money.
Senator Perrault: The mobility from province to province, the acceptance of one EDUCATIONal standard and another, does that remain a problem? Are there any comments on that subject?
Mr. Williams: I think it remains a problem. It remains a problem even within the province.
Senator Perrault: Such as interprovincial trade; we do not even have free trade in Canada.
Mr. Williams: Before I took my two-year diploma, which I am taking at UBC, I took a two-year diploma at UCFB. I have heard stories of students who have that degree and who are having trouble transferring to UBC because it is not accepted. They cannot enrol for a masters degree because UBC will not recognize their degree. I hear stories about people who took some courses at BCIT having to fight to get them recognized in Toronto.
Senator Perrault: That is a serious problem.
Mr. Williams: It is a large problem. You hear of people who have taken courses and later enrol at BCIT and find that a particular course they have taken will be accepted, but they still have to pay for the course. There may be a person who has paid for one course three times over by the time they have finished their EDUCATIONal path. It is a real problem. I cannot understand why people cannot get together in this country and rationally discuss what the criteria are for philosophy 101. I fail to understand why universities take territorial rights.
Senator Perrault: Part of the problem relates to the constitutional responsibility of provincial and federal governments. One of the reasons is that the prior rights in EDUCATION are provincial.
Mr. Williams: As students start to take a more proactive approach and force universities to treat them as though they were a customer, which is happening more and more with the funding, students will be catered to a little more like it should be not as it has been.
Mr. Veerkamp: This might not sit well with many people, but now more than ever it is time for students to take responsibility for themselves. In other words, take a look at the economy, the growing sectors of the economy, and if getting a job is a priority, then from the onset they have to be responsible in choosing courses. Students are a very demanding bunch, and many times, especially going into the first year in undergrad, do not quite understand what is out there waiting for them. A lot of pressure is put on to universities to do this, that and the other thing for them. The reality of the regional, national and international economies is that students now have to start taking a good hard look at what is out there and preparing themselves for that instead of the other way around, demanding that universities and other institutions cater to them. That probably does not sit well with many people, but that is where we are.
Senator Perrault: That is a very challenging and provocative statement.
Ms Parte: Very often when there are times of economic downturn and problems in our society, we like to turn to our EDUCATIONal institutions to cast some blame for why students are graduating and not immediately finding employment. That is not where we should be looking.
I would like to refute the idea about students taking arts-based courses. I am at university taking a history degree and I often question why I am doing that. I am taking out student loans and I think perhaps I should have gone to a training institute. However, I am not in university to be trained; I am there to get an EDUCATION. That EDUCATION will carry me further throughout the rest of my lifetime than any training or specific skills could. As a student, I am learning critical thinking skills. I am learning how to write, communicate and solve problems, and I am learning about my community. What I am learning will enable me to move on after university. I should be able to transfer.
I will not have a career for the rest of my life. I will be changing my career every seven years, perhaps every five years. I will have to rely more and more on a broad range of skills, on a broad EDUCATION that enables me, as I move throughout my career and from job to job, to pick up different skills. By receiving a university EDUCATION, I am getting that foundation so I will be able to move on and do that throughout my lifetime. We should be looking at our EDUCATIONal institutions as preparing people for a lifetime of varying areas of work.
As far as employability is concerned, there is an unemployment problem that exists in this country. People are graduating out of training institutes with specific skills and are not being employed.
I do not like the idea of looking at our EDUCATIONal institutions and thinking that that is where the problem lies. Providing a broad foundation for people is important, especially with a changing workplace. It makes you more ready to adapt and move on.
Senator Forest: I would like to second what you have said. I am only going to speak about universities at first, and then I will address the other issues. I do not think any university can call itself a great university unless it pays as much attention to the arts and humanities as it does to the sciences, for the very reasons that Maura has stated.
We need to have better coordination between our EDUCATIONal institutions, so we do not have the problem of students not recognizing that their credits are not transferable. In Alberta, we do have a coordinated system of colleges and universities to try to alleviate that.
On the other side of the coin, in my other life, for a number of years I was involved in the hospitality business and the transportation business. I was on the board of CN. I found through those years that those with EDUCATION were helped to be critical thinkers, to be flexible, to have good people skills. Those are the things that are needed in the workforce. In the hospitality industry, we find those types of people and then we send them off to schools of management for the hospitality industry. The same applies in the transportation industry.
We have need for many different institutions. I hope that the universities never get away from training people in the arts and humanities. I hope arts and humanities are included in the curricula of the technical schools, at least some portion, because that is what is needed.
With respect to your comments, sir, about one-on-one discussions, we senators do that all the time at home. We are from all across the country. These are special hearings, but we receive our information on a one-on-one basis from the people we meet, not only Ottawa but also in our home provinces.
Senator Perrault: Many students, professors, organizations, employers, general citizens are very concerned about what they believe to be the declining quality of EDUCATION in Canada. Do you think there is any substance to that accusation? Has the lack of funding affected the quality of EDUCATION?
Mr. Veerkamp: There are two issues regarding funding. One is funding for the institution; the other is funding for the student to be able to attend the institution. We have to address both. I know from a student perspective that being able to afford to attend the institution is very important. At the same time, there is declining funding, an increase in class size and a decrease in quality. That is a key concern.
However, the most imperative concern is actually being able to afford to attend to get any kind of EDUCATION at all.
Senator Perrault: Just to register in for the courses.
Mr. Veerkamp: To be able to get in the door. Right now, tuition fees are as such that a student from a lower-class background will feel that he or she does not belong in Post-Secondary education. They will find something else to do because they cannot afford the tuition. We have to look at that point; it is a very important issue.
We also have to look at the funding for the institutions, to make sure that there is good, stable, adequate funding. People are concerned about what is happening. The trend seems to be catering more towards the market, turning our institutions into economic vehicles. That is not their role. It is a small part of the role they play, but it should not be the principal role.
Arts has a strong role to play in what the institutions are all about, as well as a strong social role. We must look at the social role of our universities and colleges, as well as the economic role.
Senator Perrault: I wish to make a statement and I would like your reaction to it. Post-Secondary education should be affordable and accessible to anyone who wishes and is able to attend.
You have made the point that people in a less-privileged position economically simply cannot get into university, something which runs against any concept of fair play we have in society.
We are asking: Should Post-Secondary education be affordable and accessible to anyone who wishes and is able to attend?
Ms Parte: Definitely.
Mr. Veerkamp: That is fundamental. It should be a fundamental value of any of our institutions.
Senator Perrault: It does not say "free," it says "affordable."
Mr. Veerkamp: And "accessible," however we want to define that. Accessibility is one of the key issues, and that is incredibly important. Our EDUCATION institutions provide part of the social function and are great social equalizers, as long as they are accessible to everyone. It helps everyone to be able access to the information, the knowledge and the skills they are going to need to be successful. If some people, for whatever reason, are not able to attend these institutions, they are not going to have equal access to becoming equal people in society. That is an important issue we also have to examine.
Ms Foroutan: There is a tuition freeze in this province. I do not know about the schools of my fellow students sitting around the table here, but the University of British Columbia, to keep its part of the bargain, had to increase student enrolment by 4 per cent and still take in the tuition they were charging last year. There are students sitting in the hallways because they do not have desks as a result of having to increase the number of students.
Senator Perrault: No desks.
Ms Foroutan: Not with the increase in the number of students. Prerequisite classes are filled before students can enter on the registration system. That is not accessibility. Students are facing boundaries once they are enrolled in the institution. So forget tuition, forget the fact that you have managed to get into the school; you cannot take the courses you need in order to graduate or courses in the area in which you want to graduate.
We cannot have the best of both words. UBC will say "no" to corporatization, depending on who you ask, and will also say "no" to increased tuition. Where are we going to get the funding for TA's, for professors, for classes? We cannot always say "no" and have the best of both worlds.
Ms Parte: I empathize with the problems presented at UBC. Before coming to the University of Victoria, I spent a couple of years at a community college. As a result of the federal transfer payment cuts, which trickled down to universities and colleges, cuts were made to our library services, to support services for a diverse student community, which are necessary, especially now since there are a lot of older students returning back into the system, to counselling services, to academic advising, to financial aid services; the list goes on and on.
When looking for solutions, the tuition fee freeze in British Columbia has had excellent results, in terms of allowing students who look at tuition as a barrier and a deterrent to attend university. To offset funding shortfalls, we cannot look to increasing tuition fees. If anything, we should be decreasing fees. There is no room to move, in increasing fees.
Mr. Veerkamp: Where will we draw the line, in terms of accessibility, fees and costs? Will Post-Secondary education become inaccessible? We have to examine the fact that it is already inaccessible: It is too expensive. We are past the line. We have to start going the other way. That may be a challenging statement for a lot of people, but it has to be looked at from the point of view of the students. For many students, it is not even an option. It is not related to intelligent and motivation; they cannot afford go.
Senator Perrault: Number one on the list, to achieve a consensus as to the opinion of the people assembled for this meeting, is fees and the ability to get into university.
Mr. Veerkamp: The consensus is funding: funding for the institution and funding for the student.
Mr. Petratur: As far as accessibility and affordable EDUCATION for everyone is concerned, we all agree that that is important. Quality of EDUCATION is another ideal. A quality EDUCATION is what everybody wants. The real issue is sustainability. How long can Canadians afford to provide that? It is a very challenging and confusing time; policy-makers have a lot on their plates. Some creative solutions are needed now. I do not have the answers. I certainly would not want to be in a position to have to make those kind of decisions right now.
Senator Andreychuk: The broader question that we on this committee ultimately have to struggle with is the fact the affordability and those issues come into the kind of society we have. Ultimately, we will have to judge our quality of EDUCATION against that of the world. If we are in the business of training minds, which is what I think we are about here, as opposed to developing job skills, we have to be sure that Canadians come out of this with an ability to compete, both as individuals and as a society, in the new global structures.
Having said that, do you believe that the quality of EDUCATION you are receiving today will equip you to face the challenges? As well, are the institutions facing the global challenges? The result, ultimately, is a Canadian society that meets the challenges.
It seems to me that we are getting ourselves into a circular argument. You want a job and you want to succeed; the institutions want to survive; Canada wants to continue to give quality of life to Canadians and to meet the expectations of Canadians.
Both Senator Perrault and I have just been a part of another committee that sat here this week. The consensus is that Canadians are losing because we are not international. It was said that we are too inward; that we must make our mark internationally; also, that Canadians are not prepared in language training, in thinking, and in strategic positioning, regardless of the field. Is that something that is at all discussed in university circles with students?
As students, do you feel -- setting aside the issues of accessibility and cost for a moment -- that upon graduation you will be as competitive, in whatever discipline you choose, in 10 years as I felt when I was coming out? I knew I could survive upon graduation. If I could not survive in the Canadian market, I could survive in an American one, or I had the ability to change from one. I also had confidence that my country could make the adjustments.
Mr. Williams: You are asking the wrong group. You should be tracking alumni to answer that question for you. Perhaps they can say "Yes, I just got out and my four years were great. It taught me how to think and I was able to apply it." We are not able to answer that question; we are not in the workforce. We have hopes, dreams and thoughts.
Senator Andreychuk: Are you thinking internationally, or are you thinking that you will get a job and have the kind of lifestyle that your parents had? Are you beginning to see that your life may be dramatically different?
Mr. Williams: I personally have paid for all of my schooling. I have a very small load; my wife works. I am under no allusions of what is going to happen when I get out. I have had a full-time job.
I do not kid myself as do a lot of my fellow students who have delusions of grandeur, so to speak, about what will happen when they graduate. And it will not happen. They not get the $50,000 car or the $100,000 house when they get out. Some may; most may not.
Senator Perrault: Senator Andreychuk has touched on some interesting points here. We live in a rough, tough competitive world. Here we are in British Columbia; the Pacific Rim is opening to incredible growth rates, as you know from your studies. I was on a trade promotion mission to Bangkok a few years ago. One of our trade officers told me that we have to be more systematic in the way we train our people to share in all of the economic expansion of the Pacific.
Twenty years ago, the Japanese decided they wanted Thailand to be one of their major markets; they wanted to be the dominant economic force in Thailand. As such, they set up language schools; they taught a number of extremely bright young Japanese Thai history, Thai culture. Now they have arrived. It is like a military offensive. Compare that approach with the problems facing a businessman from Toronto or Montreal or Vancouver who arrives loaded down with jet lag and tries to put a deal together in two days and simply cannot.
Are we looking at the Pacific as a vocational opportunity for thousands of people from Canada, or are we proceeding in an unplanned fashion? The trade officer I referred to said that unless we are far more sophisticated in our approach to training young people for the economic challenges of the future, we are not going to get our share of jobs and business.
Mr. Gardiner: The University of Victoria has a excellent program in their Pacific Asian Studies program. David Strong, the President of the University, has been a strong advocate in recognizing that the province of British Columbia's primary trade is not with the United States. For the rest of Canada, it is 90 per cent with the United States; in British Columbia, it is around 50 per cent.
Senator Andreychuk: It believe it is 80 per cent.
Mr. Gardiner: The bulk of the rest is with the Pacific Rim.
The University of Victoria has pioneered a comprehensive program called Pacific Asian Studies in which the student learns about Asian history and culture and is required to learn languages. It is an excellent program.
Senator Perrault: Are students finding economic opportunities upon graduation?
Mr. Gardiner: With respect to the economic opportunity, B.C. conducts follow-up surveys. Undergraduates surveyed alumni, and the areas in which there was the highest satisfaction were those types of programs. There was a high rate of satisfaction from students graduating from Pacific Asian Studies. The highest rates of satisfaction were among those who graduated in arts, in terms of quality of life and employability. Where we saw the lowest rates of satisfaction were in the business and commerce programs and a range through the sciences, up to the arts where the highest level of satisfaction was indicated.
Mr. Albanese: I wish to make a comment on students becoming customers and the issue of how much longer Canada can afford to have this EDUCATION system, as though "Canada" were something other than us. I am Canadian. I worked on the West Coast in the fisheries for 10 years. I paid my taxes. Across this country we have a publicly funded Post-Secondary education system. I paid for it. So we are determining what society needs and wants in its EDUCATION system. I do not like the sense that students are always characterized as being middle-, upper-middle-class young people who do not know what they are doing and are fumbling around wasting time, wasting taxpayers' money, that type of terminology.
This country needs postated people. We were blessed with a lot of natural resources that we know are exhaustible. We are trying for sustainability, but we cannot rely solely on that. A resource that we must invest in is human beings. We were fortunate to have those resources so that we could build the infrastructure that would allow us to have good social programs. I see Canada as a place at which the world can look to see how potentially it could organize itself.
I am learning in school how to be a citizen, not necessarily a business person. I had a small business. I worked in the fisheries and the hospitality industry, as well. I am learning now that this is a structure that mirrors society as a whole. This provides me the opportunity to speak to senators. I feel privileged to do that. In the workforce, I was not allowed this type of privilege very often. I am learning all these things from my EDUCATION, and I am learning where we came from.
My family has a long history on the West Coast, being Canadian from the 1700s. It is important for Canadians to know where they came from, the structures they have, and then go forth into the world with that foundation to explain the benefits of this system; not solely to cater to Third World countries that have labour practices that do not mirror our own. As well as postating its citizenry, the objective of a public EDUCATION system is to have a citizenry that knows where it came from, knows how to react and to deal with each other, how to think of a future and how to deal with those types of things. That is what we keep overlooking in those desperate times. I would argue that some interests are putting a lot of pressure on us to think in these ways.
I am also concerned that the public institutions are advertising in schools, which undermines the integrity of public institutions. We are going counter to the Canadian tradition of caring and sharing, of believing in its citizenry instead of catering to businesses, especially those outside the country. That is not to be insular, not to say that we are limited in our scope. Canada, with its diverse populace, is very international and very aware of what is going on in the world. It has to invest in that populace, not solely look at it monetary terms; otherwise, Canada does not have a future. We learn our culture in a profound way in our EDUCATIONal facilities.
At the moment, there is a meeting going on in another forum about Canadian culture. In my opinion, they should be focusing on the school system, making sure people understand how Canada was in the past, what it is like today. An understanding of those issues could help us to move forward. All of that has been overlooked.
By the way, I am the public; I have paid taxes -- which brings me back to where I started. I am concerned that people have overlook that fact, as though taxpayers are other than students. I am a student. I am a taxpayer. I was a taxpayer in the past, and I will in be in the future. Our EDUCATIONal institutions are publicly funded institutions.
Senator Perrault: That was a good statement.
Are there any comments on what we have heard, or would you like to raise another subject that we may not have covered this morning?
Mr. Veerkamp: Can we afford our public institutions any longer? Maybe we cannot; maybe we should do something different. In my opinion, we cannot afford not to. As a country and as a society, we cannot afford not to finance EDUCATION.
In the free trade debates, unanimously the response was that we need to be investing in our population. In this regard, we need people with job skills and an EDUCATION. We talked about a diverse and broad EDUCATION. Is this happening? A commitment was made that a greater proportion of the population would have greater skills and greater EDUCATION. Is this investment occurring?
It is important that we do invest in Canada. We cannot afford not to.
Ms Parte: I wished to comment on information-based technologies and the role it is playing it colleges and universities in British Columbia and how funding has also been impacting on that. This is of particular importance because our provincial government has just announced that it is going to put $100 million into building the information highway between colleges and universities in this province.
I was a student at a community college for two years prior to going to the University of Victoria. During that time, our community college was starting to deliver EDUCATION through information technology. As students at that college, we reached a consensus that that was not what we wanted. What we wanted was a traditional classroom, where we would interact with each other. We did not want information-based technologies to be the sole focus of our EDUCATION.
There is a fear that that is the direction we are moving in. That fear is predicated by a lack of funding that I am seeing in our community college system and the belief that information-based technologies is a cheaper mode of delivery of EDUCATION than the traditional classroom with the professor and the students and interaction.
I feel strongly that we are going in the wrong direction. I approve of it, if it is distance-based. Rob mentioned being from Port Alberni and the difficulty there accessing EDUCATION. In remote areas or because of other difficulties where people have accessing EDUCATION, then I can see it being useful.
When I was a student at Camosun College, I took an English literature course over the radio. I had to listen to my professor twice a week for an hour on the radio. It was pre-recorded. I lived about four blocks from the institution. I had to do that because of wait-lists and because it is less expensive.
I am asking the Senate to ask the government to take a more concerted look at what is happening with information-based technologies and to come to some consensus about what role they will play in EDUCATIONal institutions. As students, we hope that information-based technologies will be a tool that we will use in the process, but not something that will replace traditional EDUCATION for us.
Senator Perrault: That was a very eloquent statement.
Senator Andreychuk: Do you not believe that some of the technologies, if used correctly, can be a different way of interacting?
Ms Parte: It is interactive with a computer screen.
Senator Andreychuk: I say that because I come from social sciences and our complaint has been that everyone is sitting in front of a screen and that no one is talking to anyone. More recently, some people have stated that we do not understand the technology; that as individuals we will be communicating but in a different way. Is that a good rebuttal?
Ms Parte: Again, that is where it is a communication tool. It is used in the same manner as video-conferencing and networking, being able to access people in other regions via the computer versus the telephone or fax. It is important to emphasize that it is a communication tool, as you have stated. In the social sciences, it has been very beneficial working when on social research; the computer programs that are available today are excellent. We have to view it as being a means to an end, not an end in itself, as far as EDUCATION is concerned.
Senator Forest: I would agree that there is nothing like personal interaction to grow as an individual. I have been pleased with the fact that the students have come from a number of different types of institutions. We need them all and they all have a role to play. I really do stress that we need the job skills, but we also need the broader EDUCATION.
We are only now waking up to the possibilities with respect to the Pacific Rim. I read in our local paper about the student exchanges to Thailand. I have a son over there now with a group of students. They are saying that this is what is needed. They could use 50 English-speaking teachers there. In the western provinces particularly, we have to be extremely aggressive in training people for those opportunities. Again, they need the basis of language and culture.
I hope that we continue to hear not only from students from all institutions, but also the administrators from those institutions so that we can interact with their statements.
Mr. Mealey: I wish to add to the discussion about technology in EDUCATION.
There are 14 campuses associated with the North Island College system. The vast majority are small one- or two-room centres in remote communities. The college has purchased several MIT units, mobile interactive television units. The original idea was that the small centres would use this technology to access the instructors at the four main campuses. In reality, it has turned out that services are being rposted in three of four large campuses and being replaced by the MITV. In the Port Alberni scenario, I can take sociology and some history classes through the MIT. We do have instructors at the Port Alberni campus, but their instructional hours have been cut back. Instead, we now have to watch a screen and listen to someone who is 70, 80 kilometres away teaching us.
There is a huge failure rate using this system. More than 80 per cent of students who take MITV courses fail. I dropped out last semester. I got through approximately the first three weeks and then gave up in frustration.
Senator Perrault: Is the main impediment the lack of personal contact?
Mr. Mealey: The lack of social interaction with the instructor is a huge impediment. The instructor is sitting 80 to 100 kilometres away from you. Everything is done one at a time, really quickly. The instructor keeps on talking; if you wish to ask a question, it is difficult. Yes, let us be honest: The technology will improve as time goes on, however, this lack of social interaction is a huge impediment still.
Mr. Williams: I like the word "affordable." I do not like "free."
Senator Perrault: I mentioned the word "affordable." I agree that it is important.
Mr. Williams: The student needs motivation to go to school, not only take up space.
Mr. Albanese: "Affordable" and "accessible" should be kept in mind. To some people, "accessible" means free. I was out of school for quite a few years. We should recognize the barriers to the people who are not students today and who are not voicing their opinions today because the barriers are so large that they do not attend. Many people have the interpretation that because students are mainly young, middle-class people whose parents probably can afford to subsidize their EDUCATION that therefore we will cut back because they can afford it. That overlooks the contributions that EDUCATION makes to society as a whole and the barriers to those who cannot participate in the system. Keep those people in mind; they are not here today. I was one of them, and probably soon will be one of them again, depending on how my economic standing fares.
Senator Perrault: We appreciate your remarks very much.
On behalf of the committee, I wish to thank you all for coming here today. The British Columbia hearings have begun with the students. We will go on today to hear from the College Institute educators' Association, the Advanced EDUCATION Council of British Columbia, FuturEd, University Presidents, and the Confederation of Alberta Faculty Associations.
You are welcome to sit in on the hearings. If you think of anything further, send a note to our chairman, Senator Bonnell, and we will do our best to ensure that that material is given proper consideration and is included in the committee report.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to chair this section of the proceedings.
The Chairman: As the chairman of this subcommittee on EDUCATION, I am pleased that the students found time to attend this morning and to share their views. After you return home and have an opportunity to talk to fellow students and professors, if there is something you would like to put on the record but did not have the opportunity, or perhaps were a little shy to speak up in front of everybody here, I will leave you my card, which has my telephone number, my fax number, my 1-800 telephone number, and my e-mail number, not only in the office but also at my home in Prince Edward Island, the birthplace of the nation.
Our next witnesses are from the College Institute educators' Association of British Columbia. I understand that Mr. Ed Lavalle will make the presentation.
Please proceed with your submission, after which we will have some questions for you.
Mr. Ed Lavalle, President, College Institute educators' Association of B.C.: I would like to welcome everybody to British Columbia, except Senator Perrault, who has been a part of the British Columbia landscape for much longer than I. Thank you for visiting the province and thank you for taking this important initiative to highlight Post-Secondary education issues in the country.
The Canadian social safety net or public goods and services are under attack in this country at this time. Some of us who are involved in the post-secondary EDUCATION system feel that our issues are not getting the exposure that issues around the health system are getting. I want to congratulate the Senate for taking this initiative.
Our organization represents the majority of faculty and para-professionals, as well as some support staff, in B.C.'s colleges, university-colleges, institutes and agencies. That system involves about 100,000 students. In the past four or five years, we have been very involved in policy development of the Post-Secondary education system.
When we say "EDUCATION and training", sometimes I wonder what the difference is. It is part of the popular lexicon. In the college system, we engage in a great deal of traditional EDUCATION and we engage in a great deal of what is called training. By "training", I mean paying attention to the labour market and preparing people, and not only young people, to enter the labour market, as well as retaining membership in a job category and retraining people when they lose their jobs. We feel that we have been very involved in developing policy in this area.
I would like to talk to you for an entire day about not only meeting labour market demands, but also about retaining a significant respect for the other role of EDUCATION -- passing on our history and our culture, and empowering our citizens. But much of that discussion is technical or philosophical and would take up a great deal of time. It would assume that that was what was at the top of the agenda. Our brief indicates that those kinds of debates are not at the top of the agenda.
There is a general consensus in this country about the need for EDUCATION and training. There is debate about how much and what the quality and quantity should be; about the relationship of the institutions to the work world, to the economy, to social development, and to political development.
The question of who pays and under what circumstances, however, is the issue that our brief addresses.
One of the key things to bring before this committee is the notion that a strong federal financial role is necessary in Post-Secondary education. We address that question on page 3 of our brief. The federal government has a role to play in traditional EDUCATION, what was considered the province of Established Programs Funding. There is a role for the federal government in that capital infrastructure. The federal government has a role to play in sharing the responsibility for the training of persons for the labour market, whether it be apprenticeship, pre-apprenticeship, or, alternatively, in some of what used to be called the unemployment insurance based programs. The most serious disruption to Post-Secondary education in the present period is the withdrawal from those three sectors of support in a substantial way by the federal government.
Under the cuts in the Canada Health and Social Transfer, which in our mind is the great evil, the federal government rposted cash transfer payments to British Columbia by $435 million in 1996-1997. This year, we estimate that those rposttions will be an additional $300 million, a cumulative total of $731 million. The EDUCATION budget in the Province of British Columbia is $2 billion. The CHST money is not just for Post-Secondary education. In this province, 29 per cent, on average, has historically gone to post-secondary EDUCATION. It has meant a serious revenue shortfall at the very time that every voice in the country indicates that there has to be more training and more EDUCATION; that student participation in the system is suffering because of the poverty of students and the lack of a proper support system.
To sum up, our brief is full of facts and figures illustrating the financial impact of those cuts on the province. The Government of British Columbia has picked up this federal default and has been able to maintain post-secondary EDUCATION and freeze tuition fees. However, its ability to continue to do that is very limited.
The federal government has a role in the policy area. We see that role as being primarily a facilitator, a coordinator, one might say, of federalism. Therefore, we would ask the federal government and this committee for support for the notion that the federal government should aid the provinces in setting up national standards for the delivery of Post-Secondary education and training through expansion of the role of the Council of Ministers of EDUCATION in Canada in a dialogue with the Government of Canada.
The federal government should also create a separate funding program for Post-Secondary education. We all know that there is this program called CHST. We think it should be "CHEST" -- adding "EDUCATION" to the mix. CHEST should include an envelope which is not only for the traditional sector, covered by the old established programs funding mechanism, but also should include a reworked and a reorganized job-oriented and apprenticeship training support scheme.
The debate on the content and the future of Post-Secondary education is really not as complicated or as in need of refining as some people might think. The real debate has to centre on who will provide those hard dollars in order to enable the recommendations coming out from the debate on policy to come into effect. It is in that area that we have already been significantly impaired by federal rposttion through the CHST reorganization.
The Chairman: Can you tell the committee what currently is the greatest barrier to greater cooperation between the colleges, universities, businesses and government?
Mr. Lavalle: Often it is mechanisms. I do not pretend to be a national spokesperson, and since I represent a provincial organization it will be heavily provincial in terms of experiences.
I was involved a number of years ago in a B.C. human resource development project that looked at the Post-Secondary education system. A number of issues came out of that. The first one is the universities more than the colleges often are hesitant to get into a debate with business, and sometimes labour, because business and labour want a fundamentally jobs-oriented and labour-market approach. Sometimes that injures the role of the university in other areas, other than labour market oriented, such as knowledge for its own sake.
With the colleges, it is often a question of funding, a question of who pays. In this province, by and large, the business community expects the public system to pay. Sometimes the demand on the public system is so great that it cannot meet all needs. We are in the process of entering a period of debate on whether there should be a training and learning tax for the businesses that utilize the skills.
We also support the student aid reform initiative that was released in Ottawa on January 20th, 1997 by the National Post-Secondary education Organization. I believe that you received that report in Ottawa. The obvious people to talk to about that are the National Post-Secondary education Organizations, one of which we are an associate member of, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, and another that we support in alliance, the Canadian Federation of Students. We ask that in terms of the volume of dollars to be committed that the federal government at least restore its cash transfers to the 1994-1995 level. No Post-Secondary education organization in the country would be disappointed if they did better than that.
One of the problems we have is that the parties do not talk together. I am on a ministry committee in this province that involves business, labour, the colleges and the unions in the colleges. The purpose of the committee is to talk about how we are going to develop a better system for apprenticeship and entry-level trades training. The outcome will be a new EDUCATIONal plan, in which the interest of all of the parties may not be harmonized, but the mechanisms to make them harmonize is there.
To answer your question: Often it is a misunderstanding, a lack of forums to really work these things out. My own notion is that conferences do not do it but that forums that have a task orientation really make everybody put their cards on the table. You can walk away from a conference and file the papers and never have to addresses those questions again. We are starting to come to grips with that by saying that if we are going to have a conference, it has to have an objective. The objective will then be translated into public policy, which will include funding and sometimes includes statutes.
The Chairman: You made a recommendation to create a separate federal funding program for Post-Secondary education. Could you expand on that recommendation? How do you envisage this program working?
Do you think that one of the reasons for cutting back on that federal funding is because some of that money was not going into EDUCATION in the first place; that it was going into building highways and other things?
Mr. Lavalle: Let me deal with the last part of your question first. It is absolutely true that there were years in which the federal contribution was 88 per cent of the Post-Secondary education commitment, and one year in which it was 96 per cent, in which they stated that they had provided 96 per cent of the funding with zero per cent political recognition.
The question then arises: If there is an important resource, is that a reason to stop funding? Perhaps it can be viewed as an opportunity for the federal government to increase its profile, to find a way to resolve that problem and to get the recognition that is required, and to make the demands on the provincial government that are necessary.
Because those were years in which the provincial government would not pick up its responsibility to Post-Secondary education, we were asking the federal government to bring in accountability mechanisms.
The answer is not to under-fund or to withdraw from funding, but to demand accountability and to demand recognition; to get into bilateral-multilateral agreements that will give that recognition.
The first part of the your question is a little more complicated, in terms of putting it into effect. Our recommendation would be that, just as there is a designated portion of the CHST for health, we would like to see a designated portion for EDUCATION. We would probably want the designated portion to include envelopes. We would probably want to make sure that there was an envelope for research, an envelope for infrastructure, and an envelope for special programs, somewhere along the line that CAUT has already indicated to you in the Ottawa presentation.
We would want a fairly substantial amount of guaranteed funding for the training programs. There probably has to be better coordination between Human Resources Development Canada and its responsibilities and the economic-development/finance wing of the federal government and the provinces in terms of setting up what would be a new funding initiative in training.
The federal government's behaviour in offering that training has been very injurious. HRDC wants $1.25 worth of control for every $1 they put into a project. In the kind of federalism we are moving to, we cannot have that situation. Probably the best situation, at least in terms of training, is one in which the funds should be transferred to the provinces as part of federal cost-sharing and one in which the federal government has policy input into what it is being targeted. Accountability should be done on the basis of outcome.
In British Columbia, we find that HRDC Canada is micromanaging a set of ever-diminishing training funds, right down to the level of what part of the project can go to support employee benefits. We have bid in this province on projects where the bottom line was no different than some other provider not in the public system. The bottom line was the same or cheaper, but it was rejected because HRDC Canada, in administration of training funds, said that the relationship between salaries and benefits was not good enough, even though from an outcome point of view you have got public training for the same or less dollars than some competitor who had their numbers in order. Of course the competitor had their numbers in order; they had a little teeny bit for benefits and a little teenier bit for wages because they had a bigger bit for profit.
Senator Andreychuk: Certainly the provinces are indicating they want almost exclusive control over job training, and there seems to be a move afoot that that may be accomplished. How realistic is it, then, to assume that the federal government will continue to fund this if it has no vested interest in it? How can you accomplish some national conditions and guidelines, particularly while the health one has virtually no guidelines or prerequisites, but EDUCATION seems to have none? How realistic is it in today's milieu around job training to get that national perspective?
Mr. Lavalle: We can get the national perspective through what I would call broadband principles. I do not dispute what you say. However, in EDUCATION and training we have no analogy to the principles of the Canada Health Act; we have no analogy to the five principles under the Canada Social Assistance Act. There has to be a difference between broadband policy agreements with accountability and what I would call "micromanaging". I can see the federal government saying that what I call "micromanaging" is actually the guts of the policy, but I do not think that is the truth. There are a variety of approaches.
I know that the Alberta and New Brunswick approach includes a substantial amount of federal accountability. Things are still in a dust-up situation between B.C. and Ottawa. That will resolve itself, too. Presumably, there will be a resolution to those problems when there is a federal strategy. At the moment, there is no federal strategy on economic development and jobs training. There are the strategies of the provinces and territories. They are not integrated, and the integration is coming very slowly. We barely have integration in the credential recognition area in the trades, in the Red Seal program. We are having some success on a pan-Canadian protocol in recognizing university transfer courses at the first and second year level, but this is slow stuff even among the provinces.
The federal government has to be a leader. Quite frankly, nobody can lead unless they have some money on the table.
Senator Andreychuk: That was my point. How likely do you think there will be money? We have not, by all accounts, wrestled down the debt or deficit yet. We are more optimistic than we were a couple of years ago. Where is your optimism coming from that the federal government can put the money on the table or will put the money on the table so that they can exert the role you are suggesting?
Mr. Lavalle: I do not have that confidence. That is why I am here.
Senator Andreychuk: If you do not, what is the alternative for the Post-Secondary education today?
Mr. Lavalle: I think the alternative, at least, minimally, is to transfer tax points back to the provinces. A deal was made in 1979 through the EPF. There was a national consensus that the federal government had a role in. The role was of "this" magnitude, it should be indexed in "this" manner and it should be composed of "these" fiscal elements. That deal has been unilaterally reneged on.
We need to get on a new threshold of cooperation and collaboration. We need to have more respect for a pan-Canadian approach. That would be better, too, in terms of national unity with Quebec. National consultation with the CMEC indicates that that is probably a better way to go. There is a federal role there. The federal role has to be the role of facilitator, rather than being the richest guy at the table, calling the shots. That is really what has happened.
Senator Andreychuk: You say that Post-Secondary education is universally agreed to be important to governments and Canadians. I tend to agree. Looking at the rhetoric, that is true. All politicians say that the future of Canada is its youth, and all of those fine statements, but I see very little movement. I see concern on behalf of governments and Canadians into health issues and others. I see a lot of rhetoric around EDUCATION.
I have been recently involved in another committee, where we examined ways to make Canadians more competitive globally. The bottom line of that examination came down to EDUCATION. It seems to be in the jargon, but it does not surface into action. Why? Do you agree with my assessment?
Mr. Lavalle: I agree with your assessments, in part. That is not universally true across the country. The rhetoric is a shared one. The question of who pays always comes down to a fight between the provincial and the federal government. The whole country -- and my organization certainly shares it -- is under a certain malaise in policy, and that is sometimes called the neoconservative agenda -- but I do not wish to upset any neoconservatives who are present. There is notion that debt and deficit take priority and that, as a consequence of that priority, public goods and services have to be decreased. Another argument is that if we invest in certain public goods and services, employment and income will be expanded, and if the increased revenue is not spent on new things then we can begin to pay down the debt and deficit. I believe the head of the Bank of Montreal and the head of the business administration school at York University -- if I remember correctly since my knowledge of these things comes from reading airline magazines -- would agree with me on that fact.
There is an ideological agenda in the country that debt and deficit are our number one priority and that the best way to deal with those is by retarding the growth, as in B.C., or by cutting the commitments to post-secondary EDUCATION, as in Ontario.
Senator Andreychuk: Let me take the argument a little differently. Assuming that you are correct, that we are in the cut mode as opposed to other alternatives, which I do not necessarily reject as there has to be some of that, why does EDUCATION and Post-Secondary education in particular fare not as well as some of the other sectors that are equally valid, such as health? The relativity seems to be greater in this area, or do you share that?
Mr. Lavalle: I am attempting to think of the statistics -- statistically that would be borne out. I am not going to be trite and say that more people think they are going to need to health care services than to get postated. I do not know about that.
Senator Andreychuk: If you are correct, what could we do to put EDUCATION, not on a competitive basis with the other things that are important to us, but on a level playing field?
Mr. Lavalle: There is a role here for the institution and for government, and for the social partner, so to speak, in advancing the interests of EDUCATION. We probably have not done as good a job selling ourselves as we should have. I do not think Post-Secondary education should exist just as a matter of unchallenged right. It should have to explain itself, be publicly accountable, and, broadly defined, be in the public interest. Some parts of learning and inquiry, and notions of academic freedom that are around them, that are carried out at the universities are part of the democratic subtext of the country. I do not think we sold ourselves well. That is partly because much of the good of EDUCATION, in a very pragmatic sense, is individually appropriated; it prepares an individual for his job or profession. In that sense, we do not really indicate the social and economic good that comes out of the public EDUCATION systems as much as we could.
The political leadership in the country has not been good in the area of EDUCATION. I can only think of one province in the last 10 years where Post-Secondary education has been on top of the electoral agenda in an election and that was in the province of British Columbia in the last one. Everybody was for EDUCATION, but it was led by the government in power who made it an issue. I do not know if that happens. I have not seen too many politicians defend the universities, in the very broad sense, even though that has been good and necessary, as those institutions have eroded. Even within the governing party, it is my impression, having met with them, that the MPs committed to universities and Post-Secondary education have to meet as a caucus just to try to get heard within the governing party.
I agree with you that there is a rhetoric of paying lip service to Post-Secondary education. It is not often honoured in the funding allocation. We are probably coming to a crisis where political leadership has to take some responsibility for that. I do not know the actual statistics on the university side, but on the colleges and training institute side I can give you the figures if you wish. They are all doing more for less and there will be a point where demand has outstripped the willingness of those institutions or their ability to do more for less. At that point, there will be a resource crunch.
In British Columbia, the crunch in resources compared to demand has articulated itself in very interesting way. In the last 10 years, the number of private training institutions in the province has increased five times. They operate mostly on a skills basis and support providing only the basic language skills to be a citizen in this country. In 1989, there were 400 private training institutions in the province. Today, there are 1,400, and the only protections around them is some basic consumer protection. That indicates to me that the demand is outstripping public supply of EDUCATION.
Senator Perrault: Mr. Chairman, that was an excellent brief. I am intrigued by the first sentence on page 1 of the brief, under "Introduction." It reads: "The EDUCATION and training system of the future must move even further than it has to date in embracing a new vision, new methods and new ideas."
We talk about the information highway and the fact that 50 million people now have access to the Internet and that 20 million people now have the Internet installed in their homes. EDUCATION surely cannot remain untouched by this phenomenon that is sweeping the world. The flow of information is of tidal proportions. Is there a way that we can use some of this new technology to postate our people and thereby possibly save some money in the process?
Mr. Lavalle: There has been a commitment in the province to that for a very long time. First of all, it is not a matter of EDUCATIONal institutions being untouched. The EDUCATIONal institutions in North America have been pioneers in this area. The Internet was developed in the U.S. for the Defense Department, based on research done at MIT and other institutions. Distributed learning, as we are starting to call it here, new forms of technological learning, is a key feature of the future of the Post-Secondary education in the province.
The problem with all technological applications in EDUCATION is that if they are cost-driven, if the reason to implement them is on the basis of cost, we may lose a great deal. We are trying to balance the operational efficiencies that may result, the economic efficiencies that may result, with making sure that the quality of learning is maintained.
There are big plans in this province with the Provincial Learning Network. The Open Learning Agency is one of the oldest institutions in Canada committed to technological learning. I would say that we are right into it.
Senator Perrault: The other day I was startled to hear a commercial on one of our local radio stations for Queen's University inviting students to be a graduate of their business administration department, the details of which could be accessed by Internet or by computer, or by phoning a toll-free number.
Here is an institution in Ontario recruiting students for programs from British Columbia -- and a very prestigious university. I was at Simon Fraser a couple of weeks ago when a plan for a virtual university was unveiled. Knowledge can be sent all over the world for people who wish to sign up and pay fees for it. Where is this all going to lead? Do you see British Columbia institutions offering degree courses to people throughout the world?
Mr. Lavalle: They already are. The OLA, Open Learning Agency, is actively marketing its distance EDUCATION package in the Far East and the Middle East.
Senator Perrault: Broadcasting by satellite from here to the Middle East?
Mr. Lavalle: No, not broadcasting. I know they are selling packages that are rebroadcast over there. India is highly Internet-active. They sell the packages, which are then distributed by the EDUCATIONal authority in New Delhi, as I understand. But there are some courses and some programs now being offered on the Internet in the Province of British Columbia.
Senator Perrault: It really is a trite phrase, but it is "mind-boggling." A few months ago I went to a computer conference in Fort St. John where an interactive program was described to me. The teacher is situate in Prince George and the program is broadcast to small satellite dishes in the North. It is no longer necessary for the students to go to boarding school; they stay in the local community. An assistant teacher makes sure their assignments are handed in. This is a revolutionary way of teaching, something of the new vision, new methods and new ideas.
Mr. Lavalle: I would like to add a couple of cautionary notes. We certainly are involved in this, and even advocate for it, but there are two aspects I would like to comment on. First, it is not as cheap as it looks, although on the delivery side, the operation side, it looks cheap. On the capital side, it is rather capital-intensive. The program to build a fibreoptic grid in order to better transmit from British Columbia is bogged down because of the high capital cost that is involved in the electronic highway. Internet connections in the North are very expensive and unreliable.
Senator Perrault: They cannot get much more than a party line.
Mr. Lavalle: It can be expensive also on the operations side.
Senator Perrault: Do you see this new technology as a component in the EDUCATION evolution?
Mr. Lavalle: Absolutely. At the time of one of your protégés, Patrick McGeer, the notion was that all of this would be concentrated. Patrick McGeer and Walter Hardwood tried to concentrate it all on the Open Learning Agency. That was seen as quite revolutionary at that time, a progressive project. However, the Open Learning Agency is not the primary deliverer of distance EDUCATION now because every institution has distance EDUCATION components and is actually doing programming.
Senator Perrault: What is the ultimate state of the union as far as this goes?
Mr. Lavalle: That is the second part of it that I wanted to caution you about. Learning is not just an electronic experience. Having your interaction mediated electronically is not bad, but that may not be the whole story. There is a fundamental human and social question in the learning experience. Some things can be taught on an interactive basis or electronic basis better than others. The development of concepts, ideas, social communication and exchange, critical thinking skills, where oral communication is an important part, still do not lend themselves well to interactive programs.
Senator Perrault: Do you know what Simon Fraser is planning in their virtual university? They had a launch of the concept, but I have not heard anything more about it recently.
Mr. Lavalle: I have not followed it. The universities are coming here; you can ask them about that. I know that we have a number of very interesting projects. We use distance EDUCATION all over the province of British Columbia, to reach communities that might not be able to participate, as a result of a new province-wide agreement between the college union and the administration. You can even top-up an ordinary class by interactively involving people in remote regions who otherwise would not be part of that class. We are not resisting this technology; we are introducing it. We are concerned sometimes about the debate over appropriateness.
Senator Perrault: I have been on a computer for eight or nine years, on the Internet and e-mail. One of my friends told me the other day that Tolstoy's War and Peace was available on the Internet. I am not going to sit in front of a screen and read War and Peace. It goes a little bit to the extreme, does it not?
Senator Forest: I remember the days of 97-per-cent funding. The federal government could not get credit for it then because of provincial jurisdiction on EDUCATION, so I do not think we will get it now.
I have two questions. First, of that $435 million that the federal government put into the transfer payments, did EDUCATION get its fair share?
Mr. Lavalle: In the few years previous to the year they cut it, they actually were starting to do better. In 1979, 70 per cent went to health and about 29 per cent of the EPF went to Post-Secondary education, and then it moved around quite a bit in terms of notional attributes.
In the years prior to the cuts, I would say that we were receiving a solid 30 per cent of that money.
Senator Forest: In response to Senator Andreychuk, wondering why EDUCATION is not getting the publicity, we are not getting our message across. The last two polls have indicated that the first concern of Canadians is health and the second is EDUCATION. We have to do a job on our communication with respect to the needs for EDUCATION. Certainly the colleges are an important part of the system.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Forest, and thank you Mr. Lavalle for your presentation.
Our next witness is Mr. Della Mattia of the Advanced EDUCATION Council of British Columbia.
Mr. Gerry Della Mattia, Executive Director, Advanced EDUCATION Council of British Columbia: Mr. Chairman, some of the things I will say today have been said by my colleague. We did not collaborate on the presentation of our papers, but we have a similar perspective on a number of the issues. I will not read our brief; instead, I will highlight some of the points that we make.
Although we make the same points, our perspectives are somewhat different from that taken by the CIEA and Mr. Lavalle. We note that Human Resources Development Canada has forecast that 70 per cent of future jobs will require some element of Post-Secondary education. Senator Andreychuk and others here today have already observed that everyone acknowledges that it is important for Canadians to have access to a good Post-Secondary education system. We have heard people say that our international competitiveness depends upon a highly skilled workforce, one which is provided by our post-secondary institutions.
We have noted that some Canadian small business associations have said that they have jobs available for people but they cannot find appropriately trained people to fill those jobs. It seems to us somewhat paradoxical that the federal government has chosen to rposte its funding to Post-Secondary education in the way that it has, and the figures are known to you.
Several provinces have rposted their funding to Post-Secondary education. Mr. Lavalle has noted that we have been fortunate in British Columbia that at least we have not had rposttions, even though funding has been held constant in the last couple of years.
We would like to point out to the committee that there is an enormous social cost to having people unemployed and Human Resources Development Canada has estimated that the cost of unemployment in this country at the level that it is now, more than 10 per cent, is in the order of $77 billion in lost productivity. An additional $14 billion in the increased cost to health, crime and other social costs comes along with it.
My colleague was somewhat incorrect. Our expenditure in British Columbia for post-secondary is about $1 billion, not $2 billion. I could be wrong. We are spending $1 billion on Post-Secondary education but $14 billion to shore up the health and social costs, the cost of crime and of people who are unemployed.
The other observation we make is that none of the other OECD countries is rposting expenditures in Post-Secondary education at this time. We appear to be the only country that is doing that.
We suffer somewhat from our Constitution, in the sense that EDUCATION has been allocated very clearly to the provinces. We are, among all other nations, one of an extremely small number that have no federal mandate in post-secondary EDUCATION. I suspect that our federal government, back when it started transferring money to the provinces, did that to provide some federal presence and support.
What do we think should be done with funding to Post-Secondary education? One of the mandates for this committee was to investigate whether there was a need for a publicly funded system in this country. We believe there is, most strongly. It is essential and justifiable. It lowers unemployment by providing people an opportunity to be postated and trained. That will contribute to the lowering of child poverty, which is a federal government priority at the moment. Studies show that people with higher levels of EDUCATION and higher levels of income actually call less upon the public health system to deal with health difficulties.
However, it must be kept affordable, and the only way it is going to be kept affordable is for there to be substantial amounts of government funding. If individual users were required to pay substantial portions of the cost, that would limit access to those who are wealthy enough to afford those costs.
One of our recommendations, as with Mr. Lavalle, is to urge the restoration of the federal transfers to the 1994 levels and the establishment of a designated funding envelope for Post-Secondary education. It can be allocated on a per capita basis, but that is not a critical aspect of our recommendation. The recommendation really is to have a protected envelope that is provided to the provinces.
Another area of interest to this committee is the element of affordability and accessibility. One of the national organizations, of which we are a member, the Association of Canadian Community Colleges, has presented a number of recommendations to you regarding various financial aid initiatives that might be undertaken. They provided a recommendation regarding special opportunity grants, which would be an extension to the present grants that are provided for specific groups. We endorse that.
The element of support for single parents is probably a very high priority and one we would like to see that expanded. Our national association has also talked about a form tax reform that might provide some assistance to individuals financing their own EDUCATION.
The registered EDUCATION savings plan is one that we think might have some promise, if the tax provisions related to that EDUCATION savings plan were related to savings in the Registered Retirement Savings Plan. At the moment, the interest earned by the registered EDUCATION plans is sheltered from taxation, but the money going in is not. That provision might enable families and individuals to provide for their EDUCATION in a greater way than they are presently able to do.
Another aspect of the tax reform has to do with tuition. At the present time, the only tax-dposttible portion of a student's fees is the direct tuition charged by the institution. We all know there are many additional charges, and in some cases those additional charges are substantial. Here I am not talking about the cost of text books; I am talking about the fees assessed by the institution.
Our sister organization, the Association of Canadian Community Colleges, has suggested that all fees paid directly to the institution be considered as a tax-dposttible expense, in addition to the actual tuition fee. We support that strongly.
In terms of tuition, we would like to add a recommendation of our own: that part-time tuition also be considered as a tax-dposttible expense. In our member institutions, the reality is that a typical student is no longer 18 to 24 years old and studying full time. In our sector, that has probably never been the case. Our average age is 27, and something like 50 per cent of the students in our institutions, on a provincial basis, are part-time learners. To restrict the tax dposttibility of tuition, and I believe it is 60 per cent now for a full-time course load that allows a tax dposttion, is narrowing considerably the opportunities for a number of people to get some relief for the costs of their EDUCATION.
When that is put into the context of lifelong learning, we will see more and more, and probably an increase in the number, people at mid-career who will need to take courses to upgrade themselves, either to obtain promotions within their present employment, to move to another employer, or simply to keep their jobs. When those costs are borne by the individual, we think they should be tax-dposttible.
Part of your mandate also is to look at transferability and portability. In our paper we talk a little bit about some of the initiatives we have taken in British Columbia to ensure that there will be mobility for students who are doing the academic program in our colleges to move from the colleges to the universities. That has worked well for us. At the present time, it is in need of an overhaul, but the initiative that was taken some 25 to 30 years ago to establish this transfer arrangement was leading edge in Canada. We have developed quite extensive transfer arrangements throughout the universities.
We think that the initiatives around new methodologies for prior learning assessment, so that people are not required to repeat courses that they have already taken or to take courses to demonstrate that they have knowledge that they may already have, are essential. Our system is becoming jammed with people who probably do not need to be taking the seats that they are taking. As a society, that is not only costing us money, but also it is also costing others who cannot get into courses. That needs to be expanded somewhat The Council of Ministers of EDUCATION of Canada has identified that as a priority, and we endorse that it is important to explore that.
Finally, let me say that as an organization we support the fiscal responsibility that our federal government is displaying. It is important to rposte the deficit and to not spend a third of our dollar paying interest on the accumulated debt. But at the same time, it is a matter of establishing a priority. Both a political and social will is required, but we think that Post-Secondary education could be designated as an area for priority investment. I use the term "investment" quite deliberately, because it is; expenditures in other areas might be considered for rposttion.
Let me conclude by thanking you for the opportunity to respond and to tell you a little bit about our system, because it is not like other systems across Canada in the community college area.
When they were established, the community colleges in British Columbia had both an applied studies component and an academic component. The colleges in Ontario have not had the academic components. That system, as it spread throughout the province, provided access to Post-Secondary education of whatever type to the citizens distributed all over the province. Senator Perrault talked about being up in Fort St. John. We have a community college based there and they are struggling to deliver programs to the entire northeast sector of this province. They face incredible challenges and are facing them quite successfully.
Ed Lavalle talked about some of our courses being delivered on the Internet. We have 22 publicly funded community colleges in the province. All of the community colleges and now the university colleges have academic components, but our institutes do not. They have special mandates and they are working within a curricular area that is defined somewhat differently.
The colleges are doing a good job in providing some access, but the limitations on funding will begin to limit the access. We have responded to an incredible demand. At one point, there were quite a few students throughout this province who were unable to get into the programs of their choice. Through initiatives to expand funding to programs, we have done a good job of whittling away at that backlog.
I am becoming fearful of our situation, with the rposttions in funding and the efforts that the institutions have made to increase enrolment with the restricted funding. I would like the committee to know that over the last 10 years, we have rposted our cost per student by 25 per cent. We are doing everything we can to enrol every student possible into our institutions. Now we have to worry about quality, and there may be some initiatives to begin rposting the enrolments, or at least not expanding them.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for an excellent brief. Your topics for discussion were things that I thought were very important, and you have hit on most of them.
When you get to transferability and portability, which is the latter part of your comments, why do institutions continue to resist accepting transfer credits from other institutions? Do you have any idea about that and do we have any information about what this adds to the cost of EDUCATION?
Mr. Della Mattia: I cannot tell you how much it might add to the cost of EDUCATION. Let me answer your question with a little sideways step.
When I started working in Post-Secondary education, I was involved in admissions and records as a registrar. I can remember one of the very first national conferences that I attended. A prime topic on our agenda was how to increase student mobility across this country. My perception is that that has probably not been achieved to the extent that it should be, although we have done better.
I should also say, as a form of confession, that when I began working in a community college, one of the policy recommendations that I made to the administration of the institution was that students should not get a certificate from the college unless they completed at least 50 per cent of their credits at that institution.
I am happy to say that those policies are now coming under serious re-examination, and in many cases are being eliminated, at least in the community college sector. There is institutional pride of quality, whereby the student who is receiving a degree from an institution must meet the minimum standards established by that institution. The way that they do that is by insisting that a certain amount of work be done at the institution.
One of the difficulties in transferability is determining the course equivalencies, and there is a certain amount of technical work that has to go on in doing that. If we were to focus more on outcomes, and this province is taking a major initiative to do that in the community college and technical institute sector, rather than on individual courses or subjects, we would lend some additional tools to the mobility question.
If an institution can state that on leaving the institution this student has certain reading, writing, analytic, numeric skills, then it would not matter if they did that by taking English-150 or English-400. They simply have the writing and reading skills that are needed at a certain level.
There has been talk about national standards, and perhaps that is the way to do it. We say as a nation that students who leave our post-secondary institutions have a certain level of skill in a number of critically important areas of performance, both as citizens and as productive people in our society.
Senator Perrault: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Della Mattia has stated that the cost per student has been rposted by 25 per cent over 10 years, which is really an incredible figure. Some of the people commenting on the EDUCATIONal system say there has also been a decline in the quality of EDUCATION. Have we had to make inordinate sacrifices in order to achieve that 25-per-cent rposttion? Has quality slipped? Have classrooms doubled in size? Is there another side to it?
Mr. Della Mattia: I do not know what happens in the universities. There will be people here from the universities who can speak to that.
In our sector, class sizes have undoubtedly gone up. They have not doubled, but they have increased in size. My sense is that at this stage quality has not suffered. I would hope that we would not get to the point where it will suffer, because then the end product would not be what we would hope it would be. Definitely class size is bigger. Were my colleague still here, he would tell you that the workload of his members has increased. Since I represent boards of governors and administrations, I know that the workload of administrations has also increased.
Senator Perrault: Has the new technology helped to achieve that 25-per-cent figure, the accessibility to computers and the Internet, easier communication and satellites?
Mr. Della Mattia: I do not know to what extent it has actually contributed to the efficiencies, but I can say that one of the techniques to rposte cost is to use technology in a way that rpostes some of the costs associated with EDUCATION. I talked about the people around the province not having access to Post-Secondary education before the advent of the community colleges. A benefit of the Internet is that it provides people in more remote locations with some access. Our Open Learning Agency has also done some of that. However, our telephone systems are not keeping up, or at least have not caught up.
Senator Perrault: In Fort St. John, they have only a party line.
Mr. Della Mattia: There was a Statistics Canada study that related to the use of the computer in the household. There are two factors. One is an adequate level of telephone service, enabling them to connect to the Internet; the other is a family income sufficient enough to buy a computer. I dare say that all of us in this room can afford it. As much as we say that the information highway is the way of the future and that people coming through our EDUCATION system now must have an understanding of computers and must be linked to the Internet, there are very many people who, by reason of cost and not having appropriate telephone service into their communities, are not hooked up to the Internet.
Senator Perrault: In your brief you state:
As governments wrestle with deficits and debt, institutions are being challenged as never before to spend less and deliver more, while maintaining EDUCATIONal quality and coping with increased demand from learners.
I find myself in agreement with that statement and certainly with most of the recommendations in this excellent report. You have called for a certain number of tax dposttions. Have you put a figure on that, in terms of increased taxes, et cetera? What figure can to take to Paul Martin in Ottawa and say "This is an idea, whose time has come; tuition fees for part-time students should become tax dposttible"? If we had a figure, it would be easier for us to assess.
Mr. Della Mattia: Our national organizations might be able to put a figure on it. I do not have the figures in each category for other jurisdictions across the country. I could contact our national organization to see if we could do some work on that, if you would find that helpful.
Senator Perrault: Restoration to 1994-1995 levels. It would be interesting to have those figures.
Senator Forest: My question is similar to that of Senator Perrault: What would the cost be? You say that you support fiscal responsibility for the government; everyone says that.
Mr. Della Mattia: Suggest more expenses, or lost revenue, in my case.
Senator Forest: No one has to convince me or the Senate. As Senator Bonnell said earlier, it was a unanimous decision of the Senate to have this task force. I am certainly in favour of doing what we can for Post-Secondary education. I would also be interested in some costing. It would interesting to know what the cost would be.
Mr. Della Mattia: The figure you would be most interested in would be the lost revenue to Canada if part-time studies were tax dposttible?
Senator Forest: Part-time studies; the registered EDUCATIONal savings plan is also an interesting idea. Everybody buys into RRSPs, so why not something for the future?
Mr. Della Mattia: I cannot take credit for the registered EDUCATION savings plan. That was put together by the consortium of national organizations that our association has supported, but I do endorse it. I think it is a very good idea.
Senator Andreychuk: We already have a brief.
Senator Forest: The idea of extending the tuition tax credit to include all compulsory fees, because at universities there are a lot of fees that did not used to be charged, is one of their ways of making the budget.
Mr. Della Mattia: That is right. I will see what I can do.
Senator Andreychuk: I have read your brief and I must commend you on having done it so succinctly and having touched so many bases. I commend you, particularly on your solution to EDUCATION. You are echoing a January 6 editorial in The Globe and Mail that stated that if we are really concerned about Canada's future, then we are not sacrificing other social values and goals; that it is a long term investment. It is very current now to talk about demographics, thanks to Dr. Foote and others, and governments seem to be paying more attention to them in these times of cutbacks. One of the rebuttals to putting money into Post-Secondary education is that we have an aging population and that while some may be returning for retraining and to further their lifelong learning, their savings will be able to handle the cost of that, whereas those coming into the EDUCATION system for the first time will be a smaller number, so it does not seem to get the attention of the politicians.
Do you have a rebuttal to that? Have you looked at the demographics to determine where the push will come from and what the income level of those people will be?
Mr. Della Mattia: My experience with British Columbia demographics is that enrolments are increasing at every level. For elementary schools, the figures indicate that we will have a continually growing clientele at the post-secondary level for the next 15 years, which is how far out the projection was done.
British Columbia's experience in the last several years has been nothing but an increased level of enrolment at the elementary school, secondary school and post-secondary level.
I am aware there are other jurisdictions in the country where that is not the case. I would guess that as a nation, however, our enrolment in post-secondary has not declined and may not decline for some considerable number of years.
We must not forget that the forecast is that there will be continuous need for retraining, and we probably represent the last generation that will have only one career. I can tell you from my own experience with my children that I am the last in my family who will spend a career in one area. We must not foreclose on that option, not only for our working people, but also the people who are seeking to be trained and postated so that they can move into being productive members of our society.
Senator Andreychuk: You also said that funding limits access, and that is self-evident. Do you have any studies, or are you tracking any, that indicate that as your funding does not grow to meet your access needs, that those who are pushed out of the post-secondary system are those in the lower-income brackets, such as single parents, and the correlation with child poverty?
Mr. Della Mattia: We have a unique situation in British Columbia, where the government has actually frozen the levels of tuition, so institutions are not increasing tuition levels.
Senator Andreychuk: I did not mean funding levels by tuition. I thought perhaps you were even more unique here, because if tuition does not vary the institution's abilities to deliver to their base is restricted by the funds they get from alternate sources, sources other than tuition.
Mr. Della Mattia: To this point, they have not been. In British Columbia, they have not. Our mandate has been to deliver this many full time equivalent student training spaces for this amount of money, which is flat, and do not raise tuition. At this point, there has not been a rposttion in the enrolments or the service provided by the EDUCATION institution. However, as we continue to absorb the cost of inflation, holding our revenue constant, both the revenue from government and the revenue from tuition, the institutions are facing a tighter and tighter squeeze. The only way left for them to respond is to say that they cannot continue to increase enrolment because quality is suffering. However, we have not done any studies.
Senator Andreychuk: RRSPs were an area that were never to be touched; however, you know that we yielded for first-time mortgage purposes. Has there been any discussion on utilization of RRSPs in a different way?
Mr. Della Mattia: It was a thought that we had, but chose not to say it. It is an obvious one. If families or individuals were permitted to draw on their RRSPs for first-time home purchases, it seems sensible to allow a similar provision for EDUCATION. We chose to simply support the national recommendation about the Registered EDUCATION Savings Plan. However, I think both options are worth consideration.
Senator Perrault: I have been provided with information that the proposed changes in tax measures would mean $200 to $300 million in foregone revenues for the government. I will seek to find a confirmation of that when we return to Ottawa. That is a guesstimate, but I thought I would pass that along.
Senator Forest: That was the point I wished to make. At the Thursday meeting in Ottawa, I was at the National Finance committee meeting and did not hear that.
Mr. Della Mattia: So that is what our national bodies have provided to you?
Senator Perrault: That was a guesstimate.
Mr. Della Mattia: That was for RESP sheltering and foregone tuition, including part-time tuition.
Senator Perrault: We will see if we can confirm the figures and drop you a note. We may not be able to do so.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Della Mattia, for your excellent presentation. If you have any further information about cost or any other suggestions you wish to bring forward before we write our report, please send them off to the Clerk of the committee, Ms Jill Anne Joseph.
The committee adjourned.