Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs,
Science and Technology
Subcommittee on Post-Secondary education
Issue 8 - Evidence - Afternoon Sitting
REGINA, Thursday, February 13, 1997
The Subcommittee on Post-Secondary education of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 2:00 p.m. to continue its inquiry into the state of Post-Secondary education in Canada.
Senator M. Lorne Bonnell (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, our first witness today is from the Canadian Federation of Students of Saskatchewan, Marjorie Brown. Please proceed, Ms. Brown.
Ms Marjorie Brown, Chairperson, Canadian Federation of Students, Saskatchewan: I wish to begin by apologizing for the limited time you have had to examine our brief. I hope this has not caused too many problems for anyone.
In our brief, we outline and explain some of the most pressing problems that we perceive to be facing Post-Secondary education students in Saskatchewan today. In this province, we are facing rising tuition, increased ancillary fees, implementation of differential fees for some programs, faculties potentially being decimated by early retirement packages, and many other pressures that we believe are pushing the Post-Secondary education system to a crisis point.
This crisis did not just suddenly appear. Many decisions have been made, decisions which have harmed Post-Secondary education and brought us to this point. These decisions are the result of choices that the governments have made, choices informed by the realities presented to them by various parties. We have discussed the corporate reality that is pressed upon so many of our political leaders in our brief. This reality causes them to limit their vision and not consider all of the options available to them. This reality causes them to ignore the reality of the students, the people who are attending Post-Secondary education institutions in Saskatchewan and across the country.
I would like to give you an example of this student reality. One of the previous chairpersons of our organization paints a very telling story of what life is like for many students. This person is a mature student, in that is she has spent some time in the work force before attending university. Realizing the limited job options available to her without Post-Secondary education, this person decided to study at the University of Regina. By the time she completed her degree in the Faculty of Human Justice, she had amassed a debt somewhere in the order of $50,000. Since graduating, this person has been able to find only temporary employment. On this meagre existence, she must not only attempt to pay back the staggering debt load, but she must support her child as well. One can only imagine the difficulty a single mother must face when she must choose between student loan payments and a new jacket for her child. Unfortunately, this is a choice that many students must make.
This is not the choice that the proponents of the corporate sector would have people consider. According to their argument, Post-Secondary education is a luxury that cannot be funded from the public purse; Canadians cannot afford a Post-Secondary education system, they claim; such a system must be funded by the individual. We argue that to dismantle a universal publicly funded EDUCATION system in favour of a system that benefits only the economic elite of society, that benefits the banks which collect and earn money on the exorbitant debts of many students, is a choice that we cannot afford to make.
Ms Jessica Peart, Secretary-Treasurer, Canadian Federation of Students, Saskatchewan: There are many choices that would respect the reality of students. These choices would benefit students and in turn benefit society. We believe that this is the goal of government, that this is the purpose for which it exists -- to create the most equitable, satisfying and fulfilling reality possible.
Post-Secondary education is a good place to start when building this kind of productive country. There are many changes that could be made, and some of which include changes to national standards.
There is a disparity between the type of EDUCATION available from province to province. For example, the average tuition in Quebec is roughly $1,600 per year for a full course load. At the University of Calgary, the same course load will cost $3,200. Higher tuitions represent a barrier to access and do not necessarily reflect the quality of EDUCATION being offered at the institution. We believe that tuition rates should be as equal as possible across the country. Furthermore, we believe that tuition should be as low as possible so that access to Post-Secondary education is not limited. We do not want to discriminate against people on the basis of their financial circumstances.
Another example of such disparity is the provincial student loan programs. The level of support varies widely from province to province, as does the level of remittance. This again presents a level of restricted access.
We would like to see stronger guidelines for provincial student loans. We are very fearful in Saskatchewan; the government has handed the provincial student loan program to one bank, the Royal Bank. Students now have no choice but to open an account and pay extremely high service charges, if they are to receive a loan. Other institutions, such as the Credit Union, do not charge such high fees, but students no longer have the choice to take their student loan to this institution. Our fears increase as we consider that the banks have taken on more of a role in the selection process of who will receive a student loan. We would like to see higher levels of funding offered through student loans and higher levels of remittance on these loans. Most importantly, we would like to see the system of grants re-established with adequate funding, so that a meaningful contribution to the lives of students with limited financial resources could be made.
Also, the Canada Health and Social Transfer has represented a major problem for provincial funding of Post-Secondary education. In addition to a rposttion in the amount of money received by the provinces, we have experienced a rposttion in the federal guidelines of how this money should be spent. This is precisely the opposite of what we need. We need more funding to our valued social programs, and we need more federal input into the direction these programs take. We believe in Canada as a strong, united country with a strong social fabric weaving us together. Universally accessible programs which improve the lives of all Canadians are necessary to achieve this. This can only be done through a strong federal government and a strong commitment from the federal government to finance these programs.
Ms Brown: In closing, Canada has an obligation to pursue the goal of universally accessible Post-Secondary education; in fact, Canada has pledged to the United Nations to work towards this goal, at all levels of EDUCATION, and to have EDUCATION accessible without tuition fees. What message do we sent to our partners at the United Nations about the wealth of our country and about Canada, as one of the richest countries in the world, if Canada not work towards upholding this promise?
Record profits continue to be made by corporations within our borders; however, these corporations, while reaping the benefits of the kind of society Canadians have worked hard to build, do little to contribute to its continuation. We need to call on the corporations, call on the reality they present, to identify and condemn the ideological practice of their language that would deny Canadians the services they need. They present a reality that is removed from that of ordinary Canadians. The reality is that Canadians want post-secondary EDUCATION. That is why we signed such documents as the United Nations Protocol calling for universally accessible EDUCATION at all levels. That is why students continue to fight for this right. The reality is that Canadians need Post-Secondary education and we are looking to the federal government to step in and make sure that they receive it. Thank you.
Senator Andreychuk: We have heard from many student groups, and the singular message is that you are having trouble coping. I think we all felt that. Thirty years ago, many students who did not come from privileged wealthy backgrounds felt that EDUCATION was not accessible. However, we were at least optimistic about getting a job. It has been pointed out that what students need is more information, that in fact that there are more opportunities existing for students to supplement their income, but that they do not know where they are or how to get them. Hence, there are now some initiatives on getting the information to the students. It has been suggested that that should alleviate the problems. I would be interested in knowing whether you feel that that is going to help.
Ms Brown: Undoubtedly, more information about different financial opportunities that may exist would be of benefit; however, as to the jobs issues, information about jobs that just are not there is limited. There has been record unemployment since the depression, and for the student who is carrying five courses, it is very difficult to work and attend classes, and, as is the case with some students, raise a child. It cuts into study time. Given the increase in tuition fees -- at the University of Regina, from 1990 to now, we have had an 80 per cent increase -- the amount of time spent working at an average wage job to cover these costs certainly cuts into study time.
But to answer your question, we would like that information, but information has to come in hand with opportunities.
Senator Andreychuk: There has been a lot said about co-op programs, that they are very helpful, not only in improving your chances of getting a job, but also in improving you as a person, in terms of cross-cultural experiences, work experiences, team building, communication skills, and so on. There seem to be some studies and some reports <#0107> I am trying to avail myself of these -- that indicate that students who work part, time as opposed to students who take university full time, do better even at university. Where is the breaking point?
If you attend university full time and work ten extra hours, not only does it supplement your ability to pay, but also it seems to make you a better student. Perhaps there is a breaking point.
Do you know of any studies in this area?
Ms Peart: I have worked all through university, and I would agree that it has enhanced my life. I am taking a double major and there were times when I had to work extra hours, because of problems within the company. At one point, I got ill I became ill. There are some people who can do it and some who cannot. If I had a child to look after, I could not manage. I live at home, so I did not have to worry about paying bills, buying groceries, all of those stresses. I was working a part-time job, earning only minimum wage. I earned barely enough to pay tuition -- my paycheque would just cover my tuition. And I live at home. I have no food or lodging expenses. So for those who have to support themselves, I cannot see how it is possible, which probably explains why so many students are below the poverty line.
Senator Andreychuk: One of the greatest advantages of the EDUCATION system as it used to be was that most of the students lived at home. In the days that I was going to university, in the 1960's, the demographics were such that Canada was becoming an urban population, as opposed to our rural base, centres of excellence were being built, where there were groupings of students, whether it was community colleges, or universities, or other technical institutions.
Do most students live with their families today?
Ms Brown: Unfortunately, that is not the situation anymore. The provincial government here has made a great push towards rationalization. They want to build centres of excellence, but in very limited centres. For instance, professional programs would be offered only at the University of Regina or University of Saskatchewan. In fact, for some professional programs, they are pushing to rationalize it to one region of the country. Hence, medical school might be offered in only one of the prairie provinces; the same with dentistry. This would definitely create a need for students to move.
As well, we still have the rural reality in Saskatchewan to deal with. There is also the issue that, for whatever reason, a student might want to attend a program in another region of the country. For instance, a student from the prairies might wish to go to school in Quebec to improve his or her language skills. I came from Calgary to attend the political science course here because of the professors and some of the courses they were offering.
In our charter, I believe we talk about portability of services across the country. I would hate to see that jeopardized by emphasizing that students should stay at home for their Post-Secondary education.
Senator Perrault: The idea has been advanced several times during the course of our hearings that we should institute a program that would allow those students who borrowed money to repay the loan in terms of some form of public service.
For example, Canada is trying to fight illiteracy; in this regard, we have a minister designated to battle illiteracy. With the training that university students receive, perhaps the area of helping people to become literate is an example of an area where students can work off that debt.
What do you think of that idea?
Ms Brown: I think it is an excellent idea for students to be contributing like that. If Post-Secondary education is funded and students have time freed up, I think you would find them participating in these types of socially worthy causes.
Senator Perrault: Even after graduation, there is a possibility that that may lead to employment, I would think.
Ms Brown: Once students left university, if they had sufficient free time, did not have to work two jobs to pay off their debt, I am sure they would be involved in community service.
Senator Perrault: And down the line, as you know, it helps to note the kind of service one has been involved in on a curriculum vitae, so it is one idea.
There is another idea that had been discussed by the Democratic Party of the United States, the concept that these student debts should not be repayable until the student is in the work force and making more than a minimum wage; that to expect someone who has a minimum wage job to start repaying these loans is really unreasonable. Have you considered that?
Ms Brown: We used to have more support, when we had the six-month freeze on payment and interest. Now we pay interest from the date we graduate.
Senator Perrault: Yes.
Ms Brown: A freeze would be very valuable, until sufficient income was being earned. I would be wary about moving in the direction of income- contingent loan repayment, though. This may force people into what may be dead-end jobs and deny them the ability to switch. But by all means, if repayment could be delayed until a student were more able to make payments, that would be very desirable. In our example of the mature student with the child who graduated with a $50,000 debt, I know her life would be a lot easier if she were not having to make huge payments.
Senator Perrault: Well, it is a serious problem for many students, and one does not like to contemplate the possibility that able, talented young people are unable to obtain the training they need to realize their God-given potential. There should not be a financial block, especially and particularly if they are prepared to work.
Senator Forest: Government people and representatives from the banks appeared before this committee in Ottawa on the matter on student loans. There was confusion among the students about the federal and provincial breakdown of students loans. They were working on a resolution of that matter so that there would in fact be one-stop shopping; that it would be easier for the students.
One of the things that you mentioned was the banks deciding who would get loans. We were very interested in that question and we were advised by the department people and by the banks that the banks had nothing to do with the selection of the students, that that was done by the governments.
Do you have any experience in this area, about whether it has been difficult for students to sort things out and to keep up with the new regulations that were being made, and so on?
Ms Peart: I can think of numerous examples of friends who received funding or loans who have no idea why they received a certain amount of money. I think that greater information would be very helpful. Perhaps seminars could be held at the universities to provide information student loans, including interest rates.
As well, perhaps things such as basic budgeting and accounting could be discussed, to help people get through. As we heard in the roundtable today, no one can guarantee what the interest rates will be upon graduation. I do not think people know or think about that when they get a student loan. Perhaps that is one of the problems when they get out and are faced with $20,000 in student debt.
Senator Forest: We also were advised that there was not only a six-month grace period, if you will, after graduation, but also, if a student had difficulty finding employment, that he or she did have another 18 months of sort this thing out. Have you had any experience with that?
Ms Brown: You can apply for relief on the payment of your loan, but, as you were indicating, it is an onerous and difficult process. As well, it is only relief from payment on the principal that is readily available; interest payments must still be made. As you know, the interest payments on $40,000 or $50,000 are high, and they begin the day after graduation.
Senator Forest: Right.
Ms Brown: It has been mutually confusing. My loan was with the Bank of Montreal, switched there from the CIBC who said that they did not want students to come into the bank because it was disturbing to the other customers.
Senator Forest: I beg your pardon?
Ms Brown: I am not kidding. At the CIBC, they asked us to do our banking at a banking machine instead of actually entering the building, so I switched to the Bank of Montreal.
Senator Perrault: You walked in the back door, did you, instead?
Ms Brown: Yes, I hid my face when I went in! And then the Bank of Montreal stopped handling loans. It was very confusing at that point. Would I still get my loan, what would I do? I went to the Bank of Nova Scotia, where I was informed that I would have to see a manager; finally, I settled on the Credit Union.
I think Jessica's suggestion to hold a seminar is an excellent one. Even students who deal with facts and figures are having problems getting through it. We definitely could use some help.
Senator Forest: Some type of counselling information.
Ms Brown: Yes.
Senator Andreychuk: I have been involved recently in individual Canada Student Loan cases, horrific stories, and when I go to the department, they point out -- and their statistics prove it out -- that the complaints are relatively few in comparison to the number of loans they have out. Are you not registering your complaints; for example, the problem you had? If you look at it, less than 1 per cent, or something, of all their loans are problematic. We are hearing a slightly different story picture when we get out in the field.
Ms Peart: I think there is some confusion about where to direct inquiries. As well, the process is very impersonal. Business is conducted through the mail. If you want to speak to someone in person at the university, you are sent around in circles. It is very frustrating for students. They just do not know what direction to take.
Senator Andreychuk: Yes.
Ms Peart: Perhaps they feel like their voice will not be heard. Apathy is a big problem on this campus. There is an attitude of: "What is the point? Government is so big; I have no chance of making a difference." Therefore, they do not think their letters will help.
Perhaps an extending hand from the department to the students, asking for suggestions or giving seminars, something like that, would help.
Ms Brown: We are very fortunate at the University of Regina, because our student union has set up an advocate position -- funded from our student union fees, so we are paying for it -- whereby we can go to this person to get help with some of these situations. Not every institution has that though.
Senator Perrault: Are you in active contact with other student federations throughout the world. For example, I understand that there are no tuition fees in Australia but that there is a rather stringent system by which loans are repaid. Do you have any background on the Australian system? How many countries in the world have no tuition fees?
Ms Brown: The majority actually. We often view the United States as the example to follow; they are an anomaly in the world of Post-Secondary education, because of the fact that they have a privatized system.
Senator Perrault: Most of it is based on the ability of the student to be admitted to the university, is it not?
Ms Brown: Great Britain is free; many of the western northern European countries are also.
Senator Perrault: What about the Pacific Rim, Japan and Korea, for example?
Ms Brown: Singapore, for instance, has a largely free system, but access is quite restricted because of course their democratic rights are not very respected.
Senator Perrault: Admission standards are rather difficult, are they?
Ms Brown: More than just the admission standards.
Senator Andreychuk: The president's son gets in but the plumber's son does not.
Ms Brown: Australia is free, but they have income-contingent loan repayment, which is what I think you were alluding to earlier.
Senator Perrault: It depends on when they have a job.
Ms Brown: Yes.
Senator Perrault: It is over a period of years.
Ms Brown: I spent a year and a half travelling and in that time I encountered a lot of Australians who were travelling; they did not want to be in their country working because they could not face the burdens of their loan payment.
Senator Perrault: So the Australia system, then, is not really a model that you are recommending to us?
Ms Brown: Zero tuition is a model, but the income-contingent loan repayment system is not a model that we are recommending. The system in Great Britain, which has zero tuition and does provide grants, although they are being rposted, is a model we would prefer to follow.
Senator Perrault: Is New Zealand the same? What about other Commonwealth countries?
Ms Brown: As a result of their austerity programs, I am not sure that they still are.
Ms Peart: In Denmark, a student gets paid to go school; they get funding for housing and food. That is a far cry from what we have.
Senator Perrault: Yet, I suppose it has to be financed in some fashion. I presume it comes out of general revenues.
Ms Peart: Yes. Income tax in the Scandinavian countries is at about 60 per cent, but for that everyone gets housing subsidies, everyone gets family allowance cheques. Sweden has one of the highest standards of living in the world.
Senator Perrault: It is a highly organized state. So most of the countries, you say, have no tuition, but they have different ways of financing the --
Ms Brown: This is actually a Canadian Federation of Students document on how the different countries pay.
Senator Perrault: Could you provide us with a copy of that, please?
Ms Brown: Yes, I would be happy to.
Senator Perrault: I would be interested to read that. We are told that only three provinces still have some program of provincial grants in place. We could be lagging behind a bit in certain areas then. I am sure this is the thrust of your presentation.
The Chairman: I wish to thank the witnesses for their excellent presentation, Marjorie.
Ms Brown: Thank you.
The Chairman: If you have any further information, please get in touch with our research assistant.
The Chairman: We now have before us from the Manitoba Organization of Faculty Associations, Mr. Robert Chernomas.
Please proceed.
Robert Chernomas, President, Manitoba Faculty Associations: I would like to thank honourable senators on behalf of the 1,600 Manitoba faculty members that I represent. As well, I would like to congratulate you and applaud your efforts in emphasizing the significance of Post-Secondary education and what is happening with it at this juncture in Canadian history.
In addition to being the president of MOFA, this afternoon I am also going to represent myself as the co-chair of the Post-Secondary education committee of the alternative federal budget, as well as a professional economist who has an interest in industrial strategy. I will not be long, though, I promise. I speak quickly.
Having said that, I cannot help but add to some of the numbers that I referred to this morning -- and the staff now has a copy of the entire chapter, as well as the book title. With regard to Canadian corporate taxes, their contribution to tax revenue is the second lowest among the G-7 countries, at one-third of what Japanese corporations pay. In terms of investment in research and development among the G-7 countries, 1986 to 1991, Canada is second-lowest -- Italy invests the least -- and it is not even close to its competitors. Almost half of all research and development is done by the public sector.
Japanese corporations pay three times the taxes but do three and four times the research and development. In terms of total EDUCATION expenditures in Canada in 1987 -- the latest statistic I have -- we are third, which is pretty high. Government investment was at the bottom. Only the U.S. and the U.K. were below in terms of government investment in infrastructure. Once again, if you look at a country like Japan, infrastructure expenditures were at the top.
Business sector total factor productivity between 1980 and 1991: Canada was at the bottom, and the only one with a negative number. And finally, the last statistic is growth in real per capita GDP between 1990 and 1991, and Canada is dead last, again, among the G-7 countries.
Senator Andreychuk: Could you explain that, please?
Mr. Chernomas: Take our national income for 1990, 1991, up through 1995, and divide it by the number of people we have in the country, and you get some number like $18,000 per person. The growth in that from $18,000 to $18,100, or in our case, $18,000 to $17,900, actually fell.
I actually have another set of comparative numbers here. There is a bar graph in the alternative federal budget which makes comparisons over a five-year period between Canada and other nations -- and even Great Britain is higher, and certainly other countries are growing much higher. I will distribute this information also to honourable senators.
With respect to free trade, NAFTA, globalization, all the arguments we have heard about the global village, we were told that more important than ever before is EDUCATION. This is the information age; resources and capital investment are not going to be as important as EDUCATION. EDUCATION is vital to our economic growth. You will find some of this in the MOFA document.
We are suggesting in the MOFA document that the federal government's abandonment of Post-Secondary education signalled to the provinces that they now have a free hand in transforming Post-Secondary education, removing the standard, moving the controls, so that now provincial or MASA parochial interests will come forward -- and I could make a series of cases about my own province as to how that has happened.
Cutting federal transfers to the provinces has resulted in a rposttion in the grants to universities and colleges, which in turn has resulted in an increase in tuition fees, declining enrolments, curtailments of programs, elimination of jobs, and, I would add, job prospects. This, combined with the fact that our private sector is not making the sorts of investments that other private sectors are, has left us with only the public sector to fill the gap -- and the public sector is beginning to withdraw. When the government begins to shift money out of public spending, it is particularly difficult for students in the lower quartiles. Obviously, students from more privileged backgrounds have it easier. Evidence from the U.S. indicates that when you shift from grants to loans, students in lower quartiles begin to no longer enter the university. The effect is much greater at the lower end.
There are also numbers from the U.S. that indicate a 7-per-cent loss of enrolment for every $100 increase in tuition fees, but that is an average. We know that students at the bottom end are going to suffer even more.
Just using NSERC as an example -- and remember that in other countries, a lot more private-sector funds are spent on research and development -- between 1985 and 1991, funds for NSERC expenditures were growing. In the area of science research, in the years 1991 to 1994, NSERC contributions levelled off. And projecting into the future via the current Liberal budget, NSERC grants are going to sink dramatically.
University expenditures and revenues: I use Lethbridge as an example. In 1992-93, something like 62 per cent of the University of Lethbridge budget came from provincial grants. The projection for 1997-98 is that 64 per cent of university funding at Lethbridge will come from student tuition. So tuition in 1992-93 made up about 37 per cent; forecasting to 1997-98, student tuition will make up 64 per cent.
Senator Andreychuk: In which year?
Mr. Chernomas: At Lethbridge in 1992-93, the funding breakdown was 61.56 per cent grants and 37.23 per cent tuition. The funding forecast for 1997-98 is that grants will make up 35.53 per cent and tuition will make up 63.61 per cent.
Excuse me, we had better be careful here -- the numbers I have just given you are for the arts and sciences faculty.
Senator Andreychuk: Thank you.
Mr. Chernomas: We can see, however, that in recent years, governments are picking up a smaller portion of university funding. The picture I am trying to paint here is that we are beginning to cannibalize, strip-mine, our social and physical infrastructure. NSERC funds are falling. Our students are going to be paying more and more tuition; in particular, students from less privileged backgrounds will be able to afford it less and less. What is going to happen to Canada's economic future?
On page 4 and 5 of our document, we have suggested, along with a coalition of a number of students groups, a Post-Secondary education act. And we have also suggested, on page 6, a Post-Secondary education fund.
It seems to me that any federal government that introduced a post-secondary EDUCATION act and a Post-Secondary education fund would not only receive credit for doing it, but also could demand accountability and transparency in return.Our suggestion is that a new, higher EDUCATION act will define the federal government's role in this field and will require the provinces to adhere to principles of public EDUCATION, accessibility, comprehensiveness and the transferability of credits; an EDUCATION fund that gives grants to students and funds research councils. In exchange, the government can get credit for it and also require transparency in doing so -- create national standards, perspectives, goals and a coherent plan for the future, like the Germans, the Japanese and other economies do.
Let me also add that 70 per cent of that budget's expenditures comes from the growth they get out of our program; 30 per cent comes from taxes, increasing taxes to corporations and to people earning over $100,000 to $150,000 a year. The question becomes: What do we do with our income in this country? Are the corporations, the business community, being socially responsible? And if they are not being socially responsible, if we tax a higher proportion of it, if we do not throw it away but we put it into student grants, put it into NSERC, are we not serving their interests as well as the interests of the country?
One of the interesting things we did in our econometrics last year when we did our budget was to look at the profits of corporations. We came to the conclusion that their profits would grow because the economy would expand. So we are taxing them because of things like expanded capacity, utilization. We think it is socially responsible to tax this money away, although it is minimal. Their profits might grow as they did last year; our economy is not growing very much.
Robert Reich, former secretary of labour in the U.S., wrote a book before he was the secretary of labour. In it, he described two Americas. In one, a small group, about 20, 25 per cent of the population, was putting together their own transportation network, their own communication network, their own EDUCATIONal system, their own health system, their own police system, their own recreation, their own entertainment. They were building big walls around these communities. Also, they did not want to pay taxes. They said "Why would I pay taxes if I am paying for all my own community?"
Then there was the rest of America, the other 75 per cent. They had deteriorating transportation, communication, EDUCATION, and recreation facilities. The question is: Do we want to go in that direction? Is that the kind of country we want to live in?
I would suggest to you that the kind of budgets governments are coming our with, as well as the things that are happening in PSC, are leading us in that direction.
Senator Andreychuk: I am not going to get into a debate with you on this, because I think it is the wrong forum. What we are looking at is positioning EDUCATION in the overall debate in Canada.
However, I have just been handed the revenue statistics from OECD, and I guess statistics can say what they want, depending on which chart you take. Taxes on corporate income as a percentage of total taxation in Canada for 1994 -- the last year that we have, because this is the 1996 edition -- was 6.6 per cent; United States, 8.9; Germany, 2.9; France, 3.7. Where would you like me to go? Switzerland, 5.4.
Taxes on corporate income as a percentage of GDP: Canada, 2.4 per cent; Sweden, 2.8; Japan, 4.1.
And in total tax revenue as a percentage of GDP, which is the productivity one that I would like to look at, Canada, 36.6 per cent; United States, 27.6; Germany, 39.3; Sweden, 51 per cent.
I guess the point is not totally the comparisons. We can argue what is the best economic policy. But it is not just economic policy; it is what kind of society we want and how do we want to achieve it. Do we achieve it through a tax base? Do we achieve it through increased corporate activity, increased trade activity?
Incidentally, of all the statistics you quoted, the relevant one for me was -- the one that you pointed out which I agree with -- is that we are second only to Italy in being the lowest country contributing to R & D. To me, that has had a dramatic impact on Post-Secondary education, our economy.
What I would like to know from you is what impact have you noticed, as a professor? This R&D figure has dropped progressively. What are the implications to the faculties and how you deliver the EDUCATION? In other words, is this lessening the research that you can obtain? What does that do to your professionalism? What does it do to the students you teach and what does it do to the quality of EDUCATION? I think that is where we have a real role to play.
Mr. Chernomas: That is a big question. We know that new scientists in our science faculty are having a lot of difficulty getting grants. We know, as people from other universities in my own province have told you, the physical structure itself is falling apart. Chemistry labs are being threatened. In medicine, engineering, science, et cetera, it is harder and harder to get grants.
In my own faculty, most of it falls into social science grants. People are giving up; they no longer do anything. When this happens, graduate students and TAs no longer get hired. There is a demoralization in even attempting to get grants to do research. These are people who have good research records and do a lot of publishing. The result of all of this is that new students are not being taught as much as they should be, because the money is not there -- library research is not there, the physical infrastructure is not there.
Our dean's office continues to insist that we apply for grants, but fewer and fewer people are even bothering to, because the probability of getting a grant is less and less all the time.
I am teaching a principles class in September. I will have 200 students. I will get one TA for those 200 students. I will have a limited number of hours, as will the TA, to spend with those students. I am not going to assign an essay to these students because I will not have the time to read and mark 200 essays; neither will my TA have the time. Hence, I will give multiple choice exams. When I first went to the University of Manitoba, there was a maximum of 80 students in a principles of economics class. Every one of my students was assigned at least one essay, each term. That is simply the standard.
Now, at upper level classes, I still assign two or three essays. But I have been told that these are courses that are not likely to hold very much because my productivity is too low. And how do they measure my productivity? They measure it by the number of students I teach. So if I get 200, I am very productive; if I get ten in a seminar class, where they write papers and have to defend those papers, they tell me that I am not going to be teaching my honours students. In fact, we are probably going to drop our honours program because I get only 10 or 12 students in my honours class. I would suggest to you, as an economist, that that measure of productivity is spurious to say the least.
They eventually had to build an architectural research building because the building that housed it was condemned. The library was actually closed; the nursing faculty now as is on the border of being condemned, the physical structure. The chemistry labs, I understand, are similar. Engineering labs are going the same route. And getting funding particularly for new research is becoming increasingly difficult.
As well, the teaching end of it, as I just said -- some faculties more than others are favoured, but we are all suffering.
Senator Andreychuk: That is the downside. Has technology in any way alleviated that or given you an opportunity to change the mix, to stop the downslide?
Mr. Chernomas: Our provincial government is very big on distance EDUCATION. Some of my colleagues are teaching distance EDUCATION courses. I guess -- I am not that old, but I feel like a bit of a dinosaur. I have watched this being performed in front of me where people are communicating, you know, by some form of, you know, long distance communication. At least I get to communicate with my 200 students. Classroom talk spurs them to talk among each other. As an undergraduate student, I learned as much, or more, from the conversations that took place in the classroom as a result of some something the professor said. The interaction was very beneficial; we participated in study groups.
I suppose distance EDUCATION is better than nothing, however.
Senator Perrault: Second best.
Mr. Chernomas: A distant second best, however.
Senator Andreychuk: Are you saying that the technologies in distance EDUCATION -- I left that area when I was doing international development. At that time, distance EDUCATION involved bringing the students to some cluster unit. So there was some interaction; there was always a senior student in that mix somewhere.
Mr. Chernomas: I am not an expert on distance EDUCATION. I am sure that some of what you have just described is still going on. One of my colleagues is actually on local access T.V., where people call in at certain hours and he talks to them. So there is some interaction, but it is very attenuated, constrained to a very short period of time, insofar as it goes on at all. The traditional way of teaching provides a lot more opportunity for discussion. Discussions are taking place as we spill out of the classroom. Students come to my office, individually and in groups. Before a test, I usually have seven or eight students sitting in my office. We can talk for up to an hour or two. This doesn't happen with distance EDUCATION. It may be a cheaper way to provide EDUCATION to 200 students, but what about the overall outcome?
Senator Lavoie-Roux: One thing that you are suggesting is a higher EDUCATION act, which would be based on the following principles: Public administration, accessibility, comprehensive- ness, transferability. They sound much like the principles behind funding the health --
Mr. Chernomas: We thought that was a pretty good idea and we think it ought to be done again.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Except that they have created quite a few problems, too. It is not working out as well as it was in the beginning. I am wondering if, taking the same model, the same thing would happen in EDUCATION.
Mr. Chernomas: Let me say, first, that with respect to the material I provided to you, I provided the whole chapter, as opposed to just the tables, because the chapter provides an analysis of different government strategies. The whole book does that.
With respect to the health sector, one of the reasons, if anything, that it is not working as well as it could is that it does not cover a large enough area. For example, it should be extended to drugs and a whole range of other areas. It should be enforced by federal government spending.
I have compared the U.S. and Canadian health care systems, and when you look very carefully at the actual numbers, you find that the costs are lower and that access is greater in areas where the costs are covered by the health system. In the area of drugs, for example, where there is no coverage, health care costs are going up.
Therefore, we think that health legislation ought to be covering more ground rather than less. Access and efficiency will improve. So I would defend the health legislation and suggest that legislation in the area of EDUCATION follow suit.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Now, the other thing you proposed was the creation of a Post-Secondary education fund. I suppose you foresee that this could be given to the provinces only if there were an assurance that it be used for EDUCATION-related purposes.
Mr. Chernomas: Inside its envelope, not buried in an envelope with health and EDUCATION and other things, that is right.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: You may have heard about the youth employment strategy that the government brought out; that more than $2 billion over a period of years is going to be spent in this area. I think we should take action to provide employment for the youth, or at least give them experience in the workplace, but I wonder if some of this $2 billion should be directed to post-secondary EDUCATION.
Which do you think would be of most benefit to our youth?
Mr. Chernomas: When the Liberals introduced their Red Book, money was allocated for research and development, which, as far as I know, has never been spent.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Tomorrow is budget day. We may hear something about it then.
Senator Andreychuk: We will wait for the budget.
Senator Perrault: The figure on page 7 is very depressing, where you say that 7,850 students in Canada declared bankruptcy in 1995-96. That is not a happy figure, is it? You say that a number of students have already been forced to end or interrupt their studies, which also creates a significant deterrent to entering university. Do you have any statistics on that? Is this figure a guesstimate, or do we have any hard figures of those who dropped out because of financial situation?
Mr. Chernomas: I do not know. Perhaps the CFS has some figures on that. I do not have any advocate numbers. I can talk about my own university. We have done some studies in our own arts faculty.
Senator Perrault: It shows up there.
Mr. Chernomas: It is clear to us that as tuition increases, enrolment decreases in the arts faculty at the University of Manitoba.
Senator Perrault: We have had people say to this committee, "We know there is a difference of opinion about whether or not provincial governments should have total control over EDUCATION. However, a national game plan should be developed. People from both sides should be invited to sit down. Forget the politics of it. We need to get a plan in place, because it is a rough, tough, competitive world out there."
Look at some of the work that is being done around the Pacific Rim. Many nations are active there now. There has been an 8-per-cent increase in GNP over in the Pacific Rim. There is going to be enormous competition for markets. The Germans are there; the Americans are there. We need to train people in trade and commerce, and the languages. Are we doing enough in that area?
Mr. Chernomas: No, I do not think we are. You are suggesting that a strategic plan is needed, that money should not just be thrown at the situation.
We actually have an advisory group that we were suggesting for post-secondary EDUCATION, which would include --
Senator Perrault: Like the game plan idea.
Mr. Chernomas: Yes, with a game plan in order to deal with this. There is a lot of emphasis on the faculties of management and engineering; however, it is in the faculty of social sciences that one can learn other languages, can learn about other cultures and about the economies of other countries.
Senator Perrault: I was a volunteer in a trade promotion mission about five years ago. While I was in Thailand, I talked to our trade people in Bangkok and they talked about how the Japanese decided that they were going to be the main economic presence in Thailand -- offshore presence. To that end, they established a program of language instruction and trade promotion. They recruited bright, able, young people who knew the history and the culture of Thailand. The Japanese are now a dominant force in Thailand, because they has a game plan; they planned it like a military operation.
He contrasted that with the harassed businessman who comes from Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver, wants to sign a deal in 48 hours and goes away absolutely jet lagged and without anything. Well, you know the story, you have read the same story yourself.
We do not seem to be developing that game plan. There is some great work being done on developing the Pacific Rim, and it is good to see it, but we do not have that game plan in many other sectors, do we?
I have interested myself in distance EDUCATION. We have it in all the provinces, I suppose, or many of them. It certainly is second-best, but it is far better than the business we had years ago of taking youngsters in northern British Columbia -- I know best that area best -- and sending them to boarding school. They can now stay in their own communities and learn via distance EDUCATION. An assistant teacher apparently is on site, to make sure they get their assignments in. The technocrats tell me that there is a possibility of developing a greater interactivity between the teacher and the students. It is a form of technology that we are apparently selling successfully in Indonesia at the present time. They have 1,000 islands there, and the Canadian distance technology is going to be used in their EDUCATIONal system.
But I agree with you that dialogue involving the teacher and the student is by far preferable.
How is technology going to affect EDUCATION in Canada in the years to come? We now have the Internet, which has a role in supplementing other forms of research. Do you see any profound changes in this area?
Mr. Chernomas: I do not pretend to be an expert in this area. I use the Internet; it is a valuable tool. On the other hand, my colleagues send me messages via the Internet when they can just as easily walk down the hall to speak to me.
Senator Perrault: Somebody told me that Tolstoy's War and Peace can now be read from the Internet screen. Can you imagine sitting in front of that screen reading War and Peace.
Mr. Chernomas: On the other hand, I get to talk to colleagues in New York in ways that are less expensive than they were before. I can read things that they are writing. It is important to be able to do that.
Senator Perrault: Some of the universities are looking at creating virtual universities, are they not, to offer certain courses. Theoretically, it would be possible to offer those courses anywhere in the world, if the Net goes throughout the world.
Mr. Chernomas: You take some noble laureate and let him or her -- it would have to be a him, it is in economics -- get them on video and let them teach their course everywhere, anywhere in the world. And what do you get? You get that one person's perspective, and only that one person's perspective. There is no interaction.
Senator Perrault: One final observation: Simon Fraser University in British Columbia is thinking about offering virtual courses, I think more in the area of technical sciences rather than philosophy. I attended a meeting there a couple months ago and they are moving ahead with it. How they intend to market it, I have no idea; neither do I know how the fee schedule would be set up. Perhaps it is being established as a revenue centre for the universities.
Mr. Chernomas: Having a calculus course taught over the in the manner you describe would be one thing; teaching an English Literature would worry me a lot more.
Senator Perrault:I agree with you. You have got some great ideas here.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Everybody is raving about this technology, saying that the students are going to learn more and more, that they will do their work more quickly, that it is going to be marvellous.
When I was involved in EDUCATION, there was a time when videos were used to teach grammar in the primary and secondary grades. The kids thought it was fun. However, after a few years, we discovered that all the videos had gone back into the cupboards. There were thousands of them. As a matter of fact, I was in a large school board, with 230,000 students, and there were many videos. I was not in total agreement with that type of teaching, however. I am not sure that this has not contributed to the --
The kids just had to sit and watch. They didn't expend much effort.
Mr. Chernomas: Passive learning.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Yes. And on top of that, they watched television at home. I am wondering -- I know it is not the same thing, but there are some similarities; it was also technology. Do you think that all the new technology, the Internet, et cetera, might have a similar effect? In some ways, we rely too much on technology.
I agree with you when you say that you would prefer to walk down the hall and speak in person to your colleague.
Mr. Chernomas: I am not an expert in EDUCATION, I am an economist. When I visit my son's kindergarten class, there is a computer there and I am glad it is there. However, I am more concerned with what happens between my son and his teacher. That is more important to me.
Senator Lavoie-Roux:At the post-secondary level, you want the students to develop critical thinking skills. I am not sure that those types of skills can be developed through mechanical means. I think that somebody has to interact with you for those skills to develop.
Mr. Chernomas: Critical thinking skills, verbal skills, written skills: these are the skill sets that will benefit people. In my opinion, these things cannot be learned through distance EDUCATION or through the Internet.
Senator Forest: We have talked about the need for a national vision and perhaps guidelines -- some go so far as to say a national EDUCATION act. We have also talked about the need for funding. One of my concerns is the decline in R&D funding. We are now in a position where we are in a very unfavourable position with respect to other countries in the world.
To me, it is very important to have both basic and applied research, because there are a number of valuable spin-offs. I have heard you, as well as a number of other people, talk about the infrastructure and about how much money is needed to shore that up. Would you say that that is one of the critical areas with respect to R&D?
Mr. Chernomas: I must admit that I am not an expert in this area. But I know that in the social sciences, the physical infrastructure is not as important.
Senator Forest: No.
Mr. Chernomas: We need funds for operating expenditures.
Senator Forest: Yes.
Mr. Chernomas: We need funds for hiring graduate students.
I had a colleague from England visit us and his analysis was that England is in the third world, Canada is somewhere in the second world, and that Germany is in the first world, in terms of their libraries and labs, et cetera. He said that they have a first-class infrastructure. He didn't realize this until he got out and travelled to these places.
The engineering faculty at the University of Manitoba is deteriorating before our eyes. You hear this everywhere now.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Dr. Chernomas, for your excellent presentation.
Our next witness is Mr. Lloyd Barber, who is the former President of the University of Regina. He is also the former chairman of the Corporate Higher EDUCATION Forum. He has been involved with many organizations and companies.
He has graciously agreed to share some of his wisdom about the post-secondary EDUCATION system in Canada with us.
Welcome, Dr. Barber.
Mr. Lloyd Barber: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I have not come with a formal brief. As well, because I have been out of the line of fire now for six or seven years, my comments will be general and philosophical, rather than specific to the given circumstances of today.
It strikes me that the basic philosophical aspects of university increasingly need to be reinforced and restated. The current focus, it seems to me, in the university milieu is about achieving immediate results, about receiving immediate payback, about distance EDUCATION, about technology supplanting the institution -- how all of those things have a major bearing on how universities go about their business. The fundamental task of the university has not changed substantially in the last 3,000 years, and in my judgment is not likely to change in the foreseeable future, namely, the responsibility of the university to inculcate in its students and in all of its citizenry the basic values of the society within which the university resides, to inculcate them with the basics of critical thinking, the basics of examination, the basics of understanding, to inculcate its citizenry with the variety of views and the variety of cultures which exist in an increasingly globalized world -- in the "global village," to quote McLuhan.
And because of the rapid change and all of the forces impinging on that, it is not as easy to clarify what that role as it was in simpler times. It strikes me therefore all the more important that we not lose sight of that fundamental role of the institution, which cannot be provided, in my judgment, by any other institution in society in the same way that the university can do it.
I have a favourite quotation about university. John Masefield, who was a poet laureate, said this when he was at a convocation representing several of his colleagues in 1948. I think it is as valued now as it was back in 1947 or 1948. He said:
There are few earthly things more beautifulthan a University.
It is a place where those who hate ignorance may strive
to know, where those who perceive truth may
strive to make others see; where seekers and learners
alike, banded together in the search for knowledge,
will honour thought in all its finer ways,
will welcome thinkers in distress or in exile,
will uphold ever the dignity of thought and learning and
will exact standards in these things.
They give to the young in their impressionable years,
the bond of a lofty purpose shared, of a great corporate
life whose links will not be loosened until they die.
They give young people that close companionship for
which youth longs, and that chance of the endless
discussion of the themes which are endless,
without which youth would seem a waste of time.
There are few earthly things more splendidthan a University.
In these days of broken frontiers and collapsing values,
when the dams are down and the floods are making
misery, where every future looks somewhat grim
and every ancient foothold
has become something of a quagmire,
wherever a University stands, it stands and shines;
wherever it exists, the free minds of man,
urged on to full and fair inquiry,
may still bring wisdom into human affairs.
The Chairman: That might be a good preface to our report.
Mr. Barber: In my judgment, university is an experience; it is not a series of classes taken and knowledge received. Wisdom is still a very difficult commodity to come by. Wisdom is developed through the experience of university, not through some knowledge imparted, and it is that aspect that is not easily duplicated. Every student who goes to university has a different experience from every other student. Even if he or she takes the same classes from the same professors and receives the same degree, the experience in the end is different. And it is different because the experience in the cafeteria was different, the experience in the boarding house or the dormitory was different, the experience on the sports field or in the music class was different. However, if it is successful, it is expanding. At the same time, it is permanent in the sense of the ability to think critically and to act responsibly throughout life. It is different, but it is the same in terms of the ability to go on acquiring the specific knowledge that is required day in and day out if you are to lead a successful and productive life, to make a contribution to the community within which you reside. You never stop learning, but if you do not have a base of EDUCATION upon which to ingest the additional knowledge as you go through life, the knowledge is not worth a damn. You must have a fundamental EDUCATION, and you get that through the university experience, building on the kindergarten to grade 12 high school experience. And I do not know any other way to get that. For thousands of years, societies have supported universities as independent, stand-alone, troublesome, difficult, sometimes pariahs, but they have gone on supporting them, supporting them because no other institution devised by man has produced that kind of result year in and year out, decade in and decade out, century in and century out.
Senator Perrault: Splendid, really.
Mr. Barber: With that I rest.
Senator Perrault: Marvellous.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Senator Perrault: What was the name of the gentleman who wrote the poem you quoted?
Senator Andreychuk: I have a framed copy of it in my office.
Senator Perrault: I would like to have a look at it.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: What you said is beautiful. It seems to say that people who have not gone to university could not develop the same character, the same --
Senator Andreychuk: The wisdom.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: However, there are also many people who have achieved a great deal of humanity and have experienced many accomplishments who did not go to university. I mean I agree with what you said, and it was nicely said, but I want to contradict it a little bit.
Mr. Barber: Your point is very well taken. University is not exclusively the way that this is done. But there are no formal institutions in our society that have as their raison d'être the goal I spoke of.
That is not to say that if you do not attend university you are destined to end up on the social ash heap; by no means. University is not the only way that wisdom is achieved.
If you go back to the second annual report of the Economic Council of Canada when John Deutsch was in his hay day, there was a strong plea for additional support for universities in Canada. At that time -- I think it was 1962-63, or thereabouts -- the prevailing attitude was that everybody had to go to university. I think a mistake was probably made in pressuring many young people to go to university. They may even have been disadvantaged by going because it was not for them for a variety of reasons -- the intellectual capacity, background, interest, desire.
University is not for everybody, but for most of those who do attend, the outcome of their experience is as I suggested in my remarks.
However, you are correct, there are many people who achieve great wisdom and make wonderful contributions to society who have never gone near a university. Many of them are the universities' best supporters. Some of the universities' worse detractors are people who attended university but had a terrible experience, did not get what I suggested the university provides.
Senator Andreychuk: It is a pleasure to have you as a witness before our committee. It gives me another opportunity to dialogue with you.
Honourable colleagues, one of the best things about the University of Regina was that not only did we talk a lot at the board level and at the thousands of meetings of the day-to-day goings on at a university, but also we often looked into the future, and that was I think in great measure because of Dr. Barber. He also taught me that the university was more than a teaching institute.
Up to the point of becoming chancellor of the university, my only contact with universities was to attend functions, concerts, and so on, in addition to my student days. So my focus was very similar to that of the students we have had before this committee -- employability, critical thinking, et cetera. However, university is so much more; it is the research that takes place, the importance of that research and what it gives to the community.
I wonder if you could elaborate on that, give me a refresher course. Also, because you have been involved in so many businesses, you can connect the world of academia with that of business.
Senator Perrault and I have been involved in meetings of the foreign affairs committee of late, where the importance of global trade, and so on, has been discussed; the fact that if we want to be a nation of traders, we must be involved in R&D, et cetera. I wonder if you might expand on issues such as employability, the welfare of the economy and how it comes down to research and development in the university, and anything else you feel is appropriate to the discussion at hand.
Mr. Barber: I will first start with the proposition that we are a nation of traders. We have been a nation of exporters, and there is a great deal of difference between being a nation of exporters and a nation of traders. Unfortunately, because of the wealth of resources in this country, we were able to dig them up or grow them and export them, with no value-added; very little intellect associated with the process, although many of these industries are far more technological than they are given credit for. I happen to know some things about the mining business and as such know how much intellectual capacity goes into a pound of copper. However, as a country we are gradually coming to a view that in order to trade we must have more than simply resources from the ground.
The question of research and development is one that has been neglected in this country for quite a long period of time. In part, it has been bedeviled by the thing that bedevils much of our activity in Canada -- that is, the constitutional question of federal/provincial, and all that good stuff; it has also been bedevilled by the short-term view of parliamentarians. Four years is not long. Good research takes dozens of years or decades to develop.
Dr. Paul Yanny, who received the Nobel Prize for his work in lasers, was fiddling around with something that excited his curiosity; he was not fiddling around with something which has now become universal in medicine and in industrial techniques and so on. The laser was an intellectual scientific curiosity when he was dabbling with it. I could give you dozens of other examples where the gestation period from the scientific curiosity to the practical application was a long and torturous period, but I will just give you one somewhat humorous example.
I was a member of the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council. I had a friend on that council who carried around in his wallet an article from the New York Times, dated somewhere around the late 1950s. It was titled: "Bell Labs Today Announced the Discovery of a Device they Call the Transistor." In the body of that article was a statement to the effect that conceivably it, meaning the transistor, could have some practical applications.
The difficulty is that the short-term time horizons of many of us lead us to want applications right away. However, the gestation period for curiosity and research through the continuum to practical applications is a long and torturous route, one that sometimes goes nowhere. Sometimes the curiosity goes nowhere, it is lost; it is funded for scientists, but it does not produce anything. Other times, it produces something as revolutionary as the laser or the transistor, just to pick two examples.
Also, in Canada, we have tended historically to depend on the universities for fundamental research and much of the applied research in our society. We have failed to recognize the extent to which the nation is dependent on the university as the basic institution responsible for not only curiosity-oriented research, but also for basic research and much of the applied research that has come from our computer science departments, more recently from our engineering departments, previously from our pharmacy schools and from our schools of medicine, et cetera. The universities have been the primary vehicle in Canada.
On the government side, the NRC, the provincial labs, and the agricultural labs have made a significant contribution, but the majority of research has taken place within the university. And this fact has been neglected. The universities has been viewed primarily as teaching institutions. The focus has been: Can the students get jobs? And although that is a major role of the university, that part could not exist effectively, in my judgment, without the research part, where gifted, curious people with appropriate resources can go about examining all sorts of things.
Senator Perrault: It is good to see you again, Dr. Barber. You have made such an immense contribution to this country. We stand in awe of you.
Let us get back to the Internet. In some ways, it could be an invaluable tool for teachers, to supplement their own activities. It is unbelievable to think that a group of kids near the Arctic Circle can access, in glowing colour, the art treasures of the Louvre on the Internet. Last year was the 200th anniversary of the printing press, which resulted in a torrent of information, research and documentation that the world thought impossible. In terms of the Internet, I think we have discovered another mighty took, one which will result in a great outpouring of documentation. We are told that the world's knowledge is doubling every five years.
The Pope has announced that all of the significant documents of the Roman Catholic Church are now going to be put on the Internet, for international scholars to peruse. This is a breakthrough. These types of things will move the Internet from being just a gimmick to an immensely invaluable tool.
You were rather restrained in your remarks regarding the Internet. Could it not have a significant role to play in supplementing and complementing the efforts of our teachers throughout the world?
Mr. Barber: No question, and the printing press did that, but it did not do away with the site-specific groups of scholars who were around the libraries that were filled with the results of the printing press, and I do not think that the fact that the Pope is going to put the important documents of the Catholic Church on the Internet is going to stop people from going to the Vatican library.
Senator Perrault: But it could be a very valuable supplementary tool.
Mr. Barber: No question about it, and you and I are not going to live long enough to see its ultimate impact. People are concerned about garbage on the Internet. The printing presses of the world have turned out a hell of a lot of garbage since the press was invented.
You have to have some basic knowledge. Without it, you can access on the Internet some document from Rome that might as well be in Latin as in English.
Senator Perrault: It may well be in Latin.
Mr. Barber: It might as well be if you have no basis for judgment, if you cannot read.
Senator Perrault: That is a good analysis.
Mr. Barber: If you cannot read, the Internet is no good to you. So I come back to the point about the fundamental basis for EDUCATION, and that is to give people the background so that they can use these tools. The pictures on the Louvre -- I have pulled them up on my screen.
Senator Perrault: Remarkable.
Mr. Barber: But when I was in grade school -- longer ago than you and I want to talk about -- we had picture books that had the stuff from the Louvre in it too, and so sitting in isolation in a two-room school in Saskatchewan, I was not totally denied access to the art treasures of the world. And having seen the Mona Lisa in my school book did not detract from the thrill of going to the Louvre and seeing it there.
Senator Perrault: I agree, because I have gone through the same experience. But the Internet could be very useful; its final shape and dimension is yet to be determined. Perhaps it may all disappear in a black hole out there, because 55 million people are accessing it now; something has to give.
Mr. Barber: In relation to my basic comment, because world knowledge is increasing exponentially, it becomes be all that much more important for each person to possess a basic EDUCATION, in order to assess whether that stuff that is doubling every X years is to be taken seriously or to be tossed out unceremoniously. The judgment and the wisdom that is required to deal with all of this stuff is so much greater than it was even 20 or 25 years ago, when we struggling in our youths.
Senator Perrault: An eloquent response, I must say. I find myself in accord with your views.
A number of witnesses who have appeared before this committee have said that they are alarmed at the services at universities and other post-secondary EDUCATIONal facilities; that the quality of our EDUCATION is in a state of decline --
Senator Andreychuk: A state of crisis.
Senator Perrault: -- because of cutbacks; that it is in a state of crisis, as the honourable senator has mentioned. Have you witnessed a dangerous decline in teaching standards and university standards in the last five years?
Mr. Barber: It is very difficult to put a precise measure on that. One of the things that bedeviled me throughout my university career was the fact that we could measure inputs <#0107> we could measure the number of professors, the number of students; we could calculate how much money we were spending on books. Hence, we can measure inputs.
However, we cannot measure the outputs. We do not know, even for a 20 year period, whether our students succeeded; and when they do succeed, we do not know whether they have succeeded because of us or in spite of us. That is a bedevilling problem for Post-Secondary education.
And yes, I could sit here and make an excellent case that the key is falling in, that one more straw on the camel's back; but universities have a lot of capacity to adjust and to change, to find different, new, better and more effective ways of doing things. I think the question of the research side may be in worse shape than the teaching side. However, the universities have had to cope with a kind of a double-whammy: a bulge of students coming in as a result of the baby boom, the 1960 and 1970s, and then an assumption on the part of many of the political leaders and decision-makers that, because the birthrate was going down, enrolment was declining, resulting in a decline in funding, as if there were a one-to-one ratio of funding.
But that did not happen. Enrolment continued to climb, despite the fact that the birthrate and the 18 to 24-year age population was going down. I have not been close enough to it in the last few years to know what exactly is going on, but the universities coped with the tremendous increases in enrolment; they brought in a lot of faculty, who are now aging and on the way out. There was a long period of time when no new faculty was coming in. We may now be entering a period where we need to catch up, to keep the system going; but again you would have to ask somebody who is more current than I am with the details. Also, it varies from one part of the country to the other because of migrations around the country and different goals and different objectives on the part of different institutions.
But yes, there are some real strains and some real dangers, and throwing money at it is not the cure for it.
Senator Andreychuk: Are you saying there should be more creativity at the university level or at the government level, or do you have some other suggestion?
Mr. Barber: Oh, both; for example, the possibilities of rationalization. Many years ago, long before it was even fashionable, an effort was made in Western Canada to get a consortium of university libraries, so that we could share the resources around Western Canada. That effort did not materialize, for a variety of reasons. Looking back on it, the technology to put that in place was pretty minimal relative to the technology available for it now.
I gather, since I have not been directly associated, that there have been some increasing moves to get collaboration amongst libraries. However, the amount of duplication in library holdings, it seems to me, is no longer necessary, given the Internet and a lot of other available technology, given the ability to plug in to what books are in the Simon Fraser library or in the UBC library; I do not necessarily need them in my own library. And that may seem heretical to some academics, but I have never felt that just because the library contained a million volumes it was necessarily a wonderful library. That is just one example of the kinds of things that might be done.
We had a great deal of success in revitalizing our physics department by bringing in some young men who were involved with their experimental work at Triumph. Somebody paid their airfare out to Triumph, and they did their experiments and then came back here and did their thinking. That seemed to work out very well. They were known as suitcase physicists, suitcase scientists.
Fraser Mustard's research, with his network of Centres of Excellence: he networks around the country and brings people together at appropriate occasions on the Internet. Those are some ways that you can get more bang for the buck, but it still costs money.
Senator Forest: Dr. Barber, I am pleased to see you have not lost your candour or your enthusiasm. You say you have been out of the circuit for a few years, and perhaps that is just as well for us.
We are looking at suggestions for the thrust of a report which we are going to be presenting to the Senate, and hopefully one that will be useful and perhaps applicable in at least some of its ways. If you were helping to write this report -- you have not been to the hearings but you have been listening for years and contributing -- what would be some of the things you would think most important?
Mr. Barber: Well, I think number one, the realization that the universities have been historically and continue to be the main institutional centres for research in this country. And there is no gain in saying that; there is no point in saying that industry in the country should do more research. Industry will do research which is germane to that industry, and they will do it in response to specific requirements that they find at the time.
I go back to my mining experience. We had some problems with a mine, where we could not get the ore recovery out of the slurry, and so on. We brought in to the best metallurgists in the world to look at the problem -- and fortunately universities have metallurgists, so we can go to universities and get the metallurgists. We are in the process of developing a new technology for smelting copper so that you do not have to burn it; you can use hydrological techniques to smelt it. That is being done in collaboration with the University of British Columbia; University of British Columbia scientists are involved in it. That kind of stuff goes on and should be fostered, but it has to be based on the fact that the university has to have this critical mass of people within the system for industries to turn to. Very few industries can afford to have big centres where research is going on for the sake of research.
There is a lot of controversy around industry/university collaboration. I have never felt that industry had any malicious views or malevolent views about being involved with universities. They are there for practical business purposes. They are not there to take over the institutions. Industry is not made up of malevolent people. A great deal of good could be achieved by fostering relationships there.
As you have already heard, I was involved initially in helping to establish the Corporate Higher EDUCATION Forum, which has had some useful contributions to make. However, it is also extremely important to reinforce the fundamental nature of role of the university in society.
Over the years, universities have had a monopoly on credentialing. If you wanted a B.A., you had to go to university. Today, given the knowledge explosion and given all new technology, if we do not keep it in check, the importance or the quality of the qualification that the degree represents will be in danger, and other witnesses may have alluded to this. The question of the credential as opposed to the qualification and the quality of the qualification and the value the world puts on it is something I suggest you consider in your deliberations. I am afraid that there is going to be a lot of phoney stuff out there, as the Internet evolves and the "virtual degree" becomes a reality. I can just hear it now: "virtual B.A."
Senator Perrault: Virtual university and virtual degree.
Mr. Barber: We are going to have virtual banks, virtual this and virtual that.
Senator Perrault: Virtual political parties perhaps!
Senator Andreychuk: I think very quietly but very eloquently Dr. Eber Hampton talked about Indian EDUCATION. With your credentials -- and you might list them, as well your background; I know them but my colleagues do no -- what do you think about the concept that we have here at the University of Regina and Indian EDUCATION as it is going to affect our society?
Mr. Barber: My background first. I was appointed by Mr. Pearson to the Northwest Territories Legislative Council, and sat there from 1967 to 1970. In that process, I became more directly involved with that part of the world and a number of Aboriginal people in the Northwest Territories.
In 1969, when the white paper on aboriginal affairs came out, Mr. Trudeau asked me if I would look into the question of Indian claims in Canada. On and off from 1969 to 1977, part-time, I advised the government on how best to tackle the whole vexing question of Indian claims, and that is an ongoing process. I have since been involved in the settlement of one or two significant claims. The Treaty Land Entitlement here in Saskatchewan, which has hung over the province for 100 years, is finally put to rest. As a result, I think the evolution is positive instead of negative -- getting on with the future instead of agonizing over past misjustice. But in the process of all of that, because of my close involvement with these people, the whole question of Indian control of Indian EDUCATION came to light, and the idea of forming a federated college was brought forward by the Indian people. And as you have learned, it has come to pass here.
I have always felt that one of the great advantages of having the Federated College in our midst at the University of Regina is that the non-Indian students have come to understand the Indian society much better than they otherwise would have, and it has broken down many of the unfortunate stereotypes non-Indians have of Indian people. I think it has been as positive in that respect as it has in providing an EDUCATIONal background to Indian people. The great success of it has been that it was the responsibility of Indian people to make it work, not the responsibility of non-Indians.
They had some very serious growing pains, some ups and downs, but Reid Robinson, my colleague, and myself made the deliberate decision not to be paternalistic, not to jump in and solve problems. They were very successful; failure did not occur. Our failure would have been to ride our superior white horse and go to the rescue. And so it has been very much a lesson in allowing people both the right to fail and the responsibility for their own success. In that regard, it has been a very successful experiment in how an otherwise disenfranchised people can become part of the mainstream EDUCATIONal process.
There are now somewhere between 1,000 and 1,500 students in the Federated College, both Indian and non-Indian. Also, they have a major outreach program; some distance EDUCATION is used. There is nothing wrong with distance EDUCATION as long as you realize that it cannot stand alone, that it has to have this base that I talked about. But the role models that have been produced for the Indian community in this province have been very consequential, coupled with, the Native Law Centre in Saskatoon, among other initiatives, all of which has made a major contribution to alleviating what would otherwise be even worse social problems than exist in this province and this society.
Senator Andreychuk: Sitting in Ottawa, we often hear about the criminality rate and the incarceration rate of native people; but we rarely hear of the positive issues. I think the Indian Federated College has been a very positive experience.
How do we get that message out?
Mr. Barber: No, how do the Indians get that message out. Maybe they do not want to.
Senator Andreychuk: But as a committee, do we talk about it?
Mr. Barber: Sure, you can talk about it, because --
Senator Andreychuk: Do we talk about it or do we not?
Mr. Barber: You know, in the era of discussion about self-government, it is a good example of how self-government can evolve, self-government within an autonomously governed institution within the rules of the state, both the province and the federal government, which controls what the university can and cannot do. In a way, the university controls what the Indian Federated College can and cannot do because there are scholastic standards to be upheld. As John Masefield says, we have standards in these things and you, as members of this community, must abide by those standards. Within this mandate, the Indian Federated College is free to go its own way.
I do not know what comprises Indian studies; that is something you will have to determine. Indian studies will evolve as chemistry evolved as an area of study. Do not come to me for it; you figure out what it is all about. And if it is up to standard, the academic community will bless your presentation of it.
They have the right to hire their own staff, and that was done and is done in cooperation with the appropriate department. They also had the responsibility, independently, of developing classes in Indian languages; so they could do on that their own. However, I had the ability to veto their academic appointments. In that regard, we had a request from the Indian Federated College to hire a lady who would teach Cree; her EDUCATIONal background was roughly grade two or grade three. Well, how can you have a person with grade two or grade three teaching university accredited classes, for heaven sakes? I will tell you how. There are not a lot of Ph.Ds in Cree around, so if a person with a grade two EDUCATION is a good teacher and knows Cree, and that person is satisfactory to the people who know about Cree and are developing Cree language courses, what is wrong that she does not have a B.A., an M.A., a Ph.D. or a grade 12 certificate? If she can teach Cree and satisfy the people who are judges of what good Cree is, far be it for me to say that she should not be on the university staff. Hence, she was hired and she taught Cree, successfully I think. Those are some of the things that had to be done in order to allow the things to evolve.
Senator Perrault: Interesting.
Senator Andreychuk: Just one postscript on standards, but not related to aboriginal standards. We keep hearing about national standards. You are well aware of federal problems in EDUCATION. Is it desirable to recommend some sort of national standards, something like accessibility, affordability, mobility, transferability, to set them up as principles?
Mr. Barber: Well, I think there are desirable principles at the university level with some frictions here and there. They have been worked out over the years amongst the registrars. For a system that has no central head or any central authority, and cannot have as long as we have the constitutional arrangements that we have, the system of transfer from one university to another is reasonable. You will hear the horror stories about students who have lost three classes or three years or one year, or whatever, when they had to transfer from Queen's to UBC, but they do not tell you frequently that they transferred from arts in Queen's to science at UBC, and naturally they lost some courses. So by and large, given the fact that it is not centrally directed, the system of transfer and standards at the university level in Canada has evolved rather effectively.
We have been criticized by OECD as having no system of university EDUCATION in Canada. If you look at it carefully, and if you know a lot about it, you will realize how very good a system it is, having evolved more or less autonomously and having been worked out amongst the people responsible for it. And yes, there are frictions, and yes, there are petty jealousies and proprietal interests and so on amongst the universities; you get that whether the thing is centrally directed, centrally standardized, or not. Everybody has a proprietary interest in what he or she is doing.
And while national standards are a good thing, we have them I think, and I think you might have a look at that, have somebody from AUCC or someplace like that tell you how the system does function and make a point of alleviating some of this concern that we do not have standards, because we do have standards.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: I am happy to hear that.
Senator Andreychuk: I have had the pleasure of working in other countries in Europe, in the so-called third world countries, and the degree of agony and worry amongst students and those who work around universities is quite shocking to me. I knew that there were worries, but since we have started this study it is at a fever pitch in my opinion. How do we bring some optimism into this, because you seem to be more optimistic about the system, and I am inclined to agree with it, but -- if we only had standards, we would be all right, if we only had more money, we would be all right.
Mr. Barber: We would be all right if we commenced to believe that the glass is half full instead of half empty. And I do not think that that doom-and-gloom attitude is by any means restricted to the universities. There is a general unease and discontent around, and I am not exactly sure why it exists. Yes, the unemployment level is at 9.7 per cent, but that means that 90 per cent of the people are working. Well, but they are part-time and menial jobs. Well, there have always been part-time and menial jobs. I do not know what it is. If you compare the problems in Post-Secondary education with the problems in the health care system, should the people in Post-Secondary education be as uneasy as the people in the health care system? Should they be as uneasy as the people in the federal bureaucracy when they see that thousands are going to be laid off, et cetera? There are reasons for unease, but those are reasons to put your head down and get on with the job. There is a job to be done. I do not see anybody around the university starving. Resources are limited, but resources are always limited.
A cynics told me one time that the job of a university is to get as much money as it can and spend it all. There are more good things to do around a university than there are resources to support those good things; so if you have not got the resources, you have to sit back and figure out some other way to tackle the problems. Universities have been with us for thousands of years and they will be with us for a long, long time, in my judgment. It is in that sense that I am optimistic. The short term is the short term.
Senator Andreychuk: So there is reason for concern, but not the crisis?
Mr. Barber: I do not think there is a crisis. There are lots of problems that need the best brains and capability that can be brought to bear on them, but those are challenges, not crises.
The Chairman: Thank you for an excellent commentary, Mr. Barber. I tend to agree with you that we would have no problems if we just knew some more answers, and so we are looking for answers.
If you have anything else you wish to relay to us along the way, anywhere between now and next month, please send those thoughts along to us. I am suggesting that we use your quote in the first of our report.
The committee adjourned.