HUMA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND THE STATUS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DES RESSOURCES HUMAINES ET DE LA CONDITION DES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 29, 2001

• 1110

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, perhaps we could begin. We're here pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), access to post-secondary education, financing and mobility.

Before we begin, you all have a copy of our new budget, and perhaps I can explain this to you. The document is before you. The total amount is $77,300. You will recall that earlier in the year we did pass a budget, but it disappeared at the end of the financial year. So although we had a budget of about this size, we had only spent roughly half of it before the end of the financial year. So we are reintroducing the half we didn't spend, and we're adding the budgets, which we didn't have before, of our two subcommittees, the Subcommittee on Children and Youth at Risk and the Subcommittee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities. It's self-explanatory. You can see that by far the greater part of the money is for witnesses to be brought to meetings by us and by the subcommittees.

I wonder if someone would care to move that we accept that budget.

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Colleagues, I would welcome on your behalf all of our witnesses today. We're very pleased to see you all here.

What I would like to do, if it's okay with the witnesses, rather than my going through the list here, is ask you to introduce yourselves quite briefly. Then we'll go to the five-minute presentations you're going to make. If you could give us your name clearly—it's for the record—and the association you represent, something along those lines, quite briefly, that would be very useful. I think you know we are on television. We'll pause a little between each one. Perhaps we could begin with Arpi, and then we'll go to Jim and move our way down.

Arpi Hamalian.

[Translation]

Ms. Arpi Hamalian (President, Fédération québécoise des professeures et professeurs d'université): My name is Arpi Hamalian, and I'm the president of the Fédération québécoise des professeures et professeurs d'université, the FQPPU.

The federation was established on May 16, 1991. It is a group of 20 unions representing 8,000 professors, namely the vast majority of university professors in Quebec. Thank you.

[English]

Mr. James L. Turk (Executive Director, Canadian Association of University Teachers): I'm Jim Turk, the executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers.

Mr. Frank Smith (National Coordinator, National Education Association of Disabled Students): I'm Frank Smith. We represent post-secondary students with disabilities in Canada.

Mr. Ian Boyko (Chair, Canadian Federation of Students): I'm Ian Boyko, the national chairperson of the Canadian Federation of Students, representing over 400,000 university and college students from Victoria to St. John's.

Mr. William A. Easton (Chair, CMA Working Group on Tuition, Canadian Medical Association): I'm Bill Easton. I chair the Canadian Medical Association board working group on tuition, as well as the National Professional Association Coalition on Tuition.

[Translation]

Ms. Lucille Auffrey (Executive Director, Canadian Nurses Association): Good morning, my name is Lucille Auffrey and I am the Executive Director of the Canadian Nurses Association.

[English]

Mr. Liam Arbuckle (National Director, Canadian Alliance of Student Associations): My name is Liam Arbuckle, and I'm here representing the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations, which represents 22 institutions currently.

Mr. Robert Giroux (President, Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada): My name is Robert Giroux.

[Translation]

I represent the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.

[English]

We represent 92 universities and degree-granting colleges across the country.

Mr. Bill Conrod (Retired Vice-President, Algonquin College; Senior Consultant, Association of Canadian Community Colleges): My name is Bill Conrod. I've recently retired after 38 years of public education. The last 30 have been with colleges in three provinces. I'm here representing the ACCC, the Association of Canadian Community Colleges. I'll be speaking later.

Mr. Claude Paul Boivin (Spokesperson, National Professional Association Coalition on Tuition): Good morning, I'm Claude Paul Boivin. Today I'm the representative of the National Professional Association Coalition on Tuition, a coalition that brings together nine national associations. I'm also the executive director of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association.

The Chair: Thank you, all, very much for that.

• 1115

Do you all have copies of the agenda? If you don't, we'll get you a copy.

My suggestion is that we proceed, if it's okay with you, by the order on the agenda.

So we'll begin with Bill Conrod of the ACCC, Association of Community Colleges of Canada. And understand that everybody has about five minutes for their initial presentation.

Mr. Bill Conrod: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. The ACCC, the association I'm representing, is all in Windsor, Ontario, at this moment, and they've called upon somebody who was free, in two senses of that word.

The Association of Canadian Community Colleges met with you in April. Terry Anne Boyles, the vice-president of member services, spoke to you on behalf of the association. To refresh your memories, we represent 175 colleges, institutes, and cégeps, with campuses in over 900 Canadian communities. We have over 800,000 full-time students and about 1.5 million part-time learners. We feel we really represent this pan-Canadian issue as we present.

When Terry Anne spoke to you, she made reference to a task group that had been investigating the issues you're looking at today. As we sit here, the task group is reporting its findings to the association annual general meeting in Windsor. I have, and I know you have been given, copies of that report. If that's not the case, then I'll have to make sure you get this. And there's a synopsized two-pager for members of the association as well.

The task group on student debt was established by the ACCC in 1998 to investigate and make recommendations regarding the issue of student debt. Very little research information was available to the task group that reflected the experience or difficulties of learners. The level of concern in the popular press and among various student groups over the past two years has increased significantly. But the material available was mostly anecdotal. Given that, how do you, as a task group, define the problem? The task group used qualitative data from across the country to identify key issues and gaps in the research. In addition, the task group held a consultation last spring with a wide variety of other concerned groups. I sat as a member of that. And it also conducted several workshops at the annual conferences. From this process the task group drew several conclusions.

I don't think I'm telling you anything new, but one of the major conclusions was that the Canada student loans program, invented in the 1960s, has been absolutely confused by a whole number of other sources of assistance for students. And a lot of that is really a result of changes in the complexion of our institutions and the nature of our clientele. I'm looking back over 1960, when I was finishing university, and the ages of the people and their experiences as adults were totally different. My recent occupation here in Ottawa, at Algonquin College, was as vice-president for continuing education. I had students who had been active community leaders, who had been taxpayers for years, who would come back to studenthood. So we're talking about a whole new ball game.

And that's exactly what the task force found. They looked at the list of problems—and the problems are all neatly outlined in our paper—and concluded that it is time to completely revamp the system. So what could a task group do? The task group then suggested that maybe we'd better look at some principles, if such a revamping is to be done, to guide whatever revamping will be done.

The task group recommends that the following principles be considered as you look at this revamping. One is universality: the system is accessible to all kinds of learners engaged in various types of learning at different stages of life.

• 1120

Another is responsibility: the system recognizes the financial responsibility Canadian society has towards its learners, and learners recognize their responsibility to contribute to their communities and repay their debts. No one's looking for a free ride.

The important thing about getting people trained and learning... In the States, I heard last week, they're going to prisons to try to get people to think about coming back into the workforce. This is a serious time in respect of the workers. David Foot told us, there are not as many people coming along as there were before. We all know what he said, and now the crunch is coming.

Then there is portability: learners are able to take their financial support with them to any part of the country or internationally, where appropriate. Why internationally? Many of the jobs in this country require an international savvy for the export of our manufactured goods.

It should be simple: one program, one form, one assessment, something that's easily administered and comprehensible to everybody.

It has to be rational: we know that problem in our country, to rationalize all the things that cross... But again, we put it out as a challenge.

It has to be flexible: the design and delivery model of student financial assistance should respond to a wide and growing range of needs.

How's my time, sir?

The Chair: It's very close, Bill. Given your distinguished seniority, you have 30 seconds.

Mr. Bill Conrod: I won't read the recommendations, because they're clearly outlined and I think they're in a shape where if there's a group of people who want to get busy and solve this problem, a framework is there. We haven't come up with a major solution. We've given some policy guidelines, a wish list, but it's going to take some wizards in this country to put something together that can satisfy these recommendations. I do know that this country is filled with bright people. I think it's possible for us to look at the other nations we're going to be competing with and come up with a challenge that meets the day, and we'll be doing something that other people will try to emulate. Good luck to us all.

The Chair: Bill, thank you very much.

First, we're sorry for the clash with the conference in Windsor. We knew about that, but there was nothing we could do, and we appreciate your being here.

Second, to you all, any written material you provide will be included in the committee's records, and the principles and the policy recommendations are very clear in this brief, and we appreciate that.

Next we move to the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, Robert Giroux. Bob.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Giroux: Good morning. It is a pleasure to be here on behalf of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada to participate in this committee's important and on-going examination of access to post-secondary education in Canada.

Canada enjoys and has been justifiably proud of a broadly accessible system of post-secondary education. Our enrolments have never been higher, they continue to grow and with current demographic projections will grow even faster in the future. There appears to be no shortage of students to fill the available space.

Yet as bright as this picture may appear to be, there are growing concerns on the access front. For AUCC these concerns relate to three issues: capacity, quality and equity.

[English]

One of the greatest challenges facing Canadian universities today and in the coming years is capacity, ensuring that there are enough spaces for all qualified students who wish to come and enough professors to provide them with the education and skills they need. Canadian universities are gearing up for an enrolment increase of 20% to 25% by the year 2010. This will require significant investment in new classroom space, libraries, and other teaching facilities at a time when we face a backlog of more than $3 billion in deferred maintenance and renovation of existing facilities.

As well as providing adequate facilities, we need to recruit more than 30,000 new faculty members, in order to address retirements and turnover, as well as to meet the demands of all these new students. Canada is not alone in this, and we face fierce competition from countries facing similar situations. Growth in the knowledge economy means universities also face challenges within Canada in attracting and retaining faculty.

The demand for graduate students is rising rapidly. More graduate student scholarships will be an important instrument to encourage more students to get their masters and doctoral degrees, so as to prepare them not only for professional positions, but also to meet the needs of industry and government for highly qualified personnel to fuel the innovation imperative.

• 1125

We face these institutional capacity challenges at a time when overall government support for the core operations of universities remains, in real terms, significantly below the levels of a decade ago. There has been some recognition of this fact and some reinvestment by governments in the post-deficit era, but we are falling further and further behind other industrialized countries, particularly the United States. This is exacerbated by the lack of reimbursements for the indirect costs associated with federally funded research. Universities are eager to play the roles governments expect of us by producing more and more highly skilled graduates and leading-edge research necessary to ensure Canada's place in the knowledge economy. But if governments expect us to meet these goals in a manner that maintains and expands access, much greater financial support is required.

As capacity issues become more urgent, so do the issues of quality. Surely it is a quality education we are seeking to provide access to. The years of funding cuts described earlier have inevitably led to an erosion of quality at our institutions, as class sizes have grown and faculty-student interactions, seminars, and face-to-face meetings have had to be reduced. The quality issue is not just about support that has been eroded. It's also about opportunities lost to enhance quality. A quality education experience is one that allows students to make choices about what they study and ensures that all disciplines, the arts and sciences as well as the professional disciplines, are well resourced. It is about ensuring that students who want to are able to obtain a broad education in diverse fields.

A quality education today means ensuring that more students have an international dimension to their studies, including opportunities to engage in a portion of their studies abroad. Study abroad exposes students to the best practices in other countries and gives them a more tolerant attitude, as well as a greater cultural sensitivity and knowledge, all important skills in a multicultural and globalized world, and to an outward-looking country like Canada. Perhaps most importantly, this experience greatly improves students' adaptability and entrepreneurial skills, creating in them an “if I can do this, I can do anything” attitude.

Quality education means ensuring an environment where technology can be used to enhance the learning experience, something we all agree needs to be done, though we sometimes forget how costly this will be. Ensuring access to a quality education means that governments must examine their broad financial support for Canadian universities.

[Translation]

And finally, we must address the question of access for whom? AUCC believes strongly that every qualified individual that wishes to attend university should be able to do so. This means seeking solutions to barriers that may discourage qualified individuals from seeking a post-secondary education.

There is little research on the impact that tuition and other costs, student debt and debt aversion have on individual decisions to pursue higher education. We accept, though, that these factors may indeed be discouraging qualified individuals, or affecting their decisions about what course they should enter or what path their education will take.

We recognize that, despite the actions of some provincial governments in recent years, tuition rates in every province are significantly higher than a decade ago. These increases, in many cases effectively mandated by the provincial governments of the day, have not offset the reductions in government support. Without adequate core support from governments, universities have had no choice but to increase tuition if they are to meet enrolment pressures, maintain or enhance quality and respond to the many other societal pressures and expectations placed on them.

We should all be concerned though if equity of access is eroded. AUCC has been and continues to be a strong advocate of enhanced student assistance and improved debt reduction measures to help individuals meet the full range of costs associated with seeking higher education. Our members have used their additional tuition revenue to more than triple their own scholarships and student aid programs.

Mr. Chairman, AUCC will continue to work with our partners in other organizations and in government to identify and work towards addressing the capacity challenges and other barriers that affect equitable access to higher education, but we must also ensure that the education to which students have access is of the highest possible quality.

I want to leave you with the thought that equity, capacity and quality are all equally important aspects of access, none of which can be considered in isolation of the others, and I look forward to our discussion today.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Robert.

• 1130

[English]

Now it's Ian Boyko, chair of the Canadian Federation of Students. Ian.

Mr. Ian Boyko: Thank you very much. I would like to begin by thanking the committee for the invitation to appear this morning.

The Canadian Federation of Students welcomes the opportunity to discuss the issue of access to post-secondary education. I want to cover off several points in my remarks this morning. However, my remarks will be guided by the issue of access to post-secondary education and some very worrisome trends that are emerging.

Data emerging from recent research suggests that the public policy direction taken by the federal government and the provinces throughout the 1990s has had a devastating effect on low- and middle-income students. The 1990s were characterized by substantial cutbacks that had predictable outcomes. Between 1990 and 1998, student debt tripled and tuition fees increased by a national average of 126%. Those figures are familiar. But emerging from the most recent data is the reality that high tuition fees, student debt, and the complete failure of the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation have all combined to undermine access for low- and middle-income students.

I will limit myself to three quick examples of such research. First, at the University of Western Ontario, a four-year tracking study found that prior to the deregulation of tuition fees, 17.3% of the students in medical school came from families earning less than $40,000 per year. After four years of deregulated fees, that number dropped by over 50% to only 7.7%.

Second, Statistics Canada's Education Quarterly Review, 2000, volume 6, number 4 confirms the above data from the University of Western Ontario as a national trend. In data tracked until 1994, Statistics Canada reports:

...an ever-widening gap [between the participation rates of low-income Canadians versus middle- and high-income families] has been evident since 1989—the same period of time when rapid tuition fee increases occurred.

It should also be noted that this study only tracked until 1994, and most of the massive fee hikes had yet to take place at that time. Presumably, therefore, the gap has widened even more.

Finally, a recent Statistics Canada report highlights a growing problem with the individualization of the post-secondary education costs, through programs such as the registered education savings plan. The report confirms that low-income Canadians are least likely to be able to save for post-secondary education. Of those from homes with household incomes of less than $30,000, 80% said they wanted to save for an education, yet only 18.7% are saving through vehicles like the RESP. That compares with over 60% of those earning over $80,000.

These numbers are clear. The registered education savings plan is doing little to help those students who need the most assistance to attend post-secondary education.

I would like to conclude by making a series of recommendations to address the growing gap of accessibility to post-secondary education in Canada. First, the federal government should scrap the registered education savings plan and use the savings to implement a system of national needs-based grants.

My second recommendation is that the federal government should undertake a comprehensive strategy to ensure that all Canadians can access our system of post-secondary education. Such a strategy would entail the appointment of a minister responsible for post-secondary education; the implementation of a post-secondary education act; and a national strategy between the federal and provincial governments designed to reduce tuition fees, reduce student debt, and restore the crumbling infrastructure of our colleges and universities.

Finally, as we have done for the last number of standing committee round tables, we call on the federal government to scrap the prejudicial and unconscionable changes to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Again, thank you for the invitation to appear today. I look forward to your questions.

The Chair: Ian, thank you very much. We appreciate your keeping on time. That's great—no reflection on Robert.

The next witness is Liam Arbuckle, the new national director of the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations.

Mr. Liam Arbuckle: Thank you very much. I would like to thank the chair and the committee for the opportunity to discuss the accessibility to post-secondary education in this country.

CASA sees three areas as priorities to be addressed within the issue of accessibility. We refer to them as AMO—affordability, mobility, and opportunity. In my speech today I will address each of these three topics by highlighting some of the existing research, alerting the committee to some of the issues that surround them, offering some potential solutions, and identifying the need for further research.

The first issue we have some ammo on is affordability. The importance of this issue has grown immensely over the past decade. According to Statistics Canada, between 1990 and 2000, the national average for tuition fees increased by 125.9%. This speaks nothing to the other increases in mandatory fees that students have to pay. Contrary to certain experts, these increases have a clear effect.

• 1135

A recent study by Ipsos-Reid, conducted for Alberta Learning, states that 44% of recent high school graduates who are not attending post-secondary institutions cited high tuition and mandatory fees as the reason for not attending. As a result, we now select our future leaders from a diminishing pool of Canadians, not because they lack talent, but because of higher costs.

For example, in 1998, tuition at the University of Western Ontario Medical School, for one year, was $4,844; by 2000, tuition increased to $10,000 a year. The result of this was that the average gross family income of a first-year UWO medical student rose dramatically. It is now $140,000, compared to $80,000 just three years ago. However, high-income parents are not the only people who want their children to attend college or university.

Statistics Canada found out that 87% of parents want a higher education for their children. Unfortunately, the same study also showed that only 41% of Canadian children have savings put aside for their education. The median level of these savings is approximately $3,000, which is insufficient to cover the national average for first-year university tuition.

It is more disturbing that low-income parents have savings set aside for fewer than one in five children, compared with two-thirds for those in higher income brackets.

CASA has several proposals to help deal with the affordability problems many students face. They include continuing harmonization of the Canadian student loan program; raising the transfer limit on the education and tuition tax credit; and a national accord on post-secondary education.

Given more time, I would outline each of these proposals to you, but I would be lying if I said that implementing these proposals would completely solve the problem. In truth, not enough is known about the problem of affordability. We do not know exactly what levels of debt discourage potential students, nor do we know what other factors come into play. This is why CASA recommends a comprehensive national study on affordability be conducted.

The next area that CASA has some ammo on is the topic of mobility. Paragraph 6(2)(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms grants every citizen of Canada, and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada, the right to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province. CASA believes the differential tuition policy that exists in Quebec violates that Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This policy sees non-Quebec residents paying close to double the tuition that Quebec residents pay.

The argument that this policy is reasonable because non-resident tuition is close to the national average is flawed. Students in British Columbia pay far less tuition than non-resident students in Quebec. Furthermore, the motivation of the Quebec government for this policy cannot be purely financial, as visiting students from a number of countries pay the same tuition as Quebec residents. Included in this list of countries are Germany, Iran, Korea, Mexico, Israel, and Bolivia.

CASA is concerned that Quebec's policy of differential tuition may spread to other provinces because of financial pressures. CASA also recognizes the strains some provinces feel because a large number of students they educate come from other provinces. For example, Alberta has a net inflow of 5,718 students; Nova Scotia's inflow is 4,769; and Quebec's inflow is 2,429 students. A national accord on post-secondary education could help all provinces develop a more integrated and fair system to deal with mobility of students.

Opportunity is the final component of AMO I'd like to present today. I'm sure that everyone in the room today is relatively aware of the personal opportunities PSE creates. The proof of these opportunities is found in the recent Statistics Canada numbers.

Currently, the median net worth for a family whose primary income earner did not graduate from high school is $62,500, whereas when the primary income earner has a bachelor's degree, that net worth rises to $117,500. The median net worth rises again to $323,000 for professional degrees, such as law, medicine, and optometry.

But the benefits accrued from education do not go solely to the individual. A widely educated population benefits every citizen in this city, culturally, socially, and economically. The federal government needs to take a more active role in encouraging such a point of view.

Presently, there is a danger that our country does not have enough individuals who fully access the opportunities made available by PSE. If present trends continue, the Conference Board of Canada worries that the country will be short up to one million skilled workers by 2020.

The past decade has seen youth employment stagnate at close to double the total unemployment rate. PSE, partnered with youth employment strategies, should be used to lower this unemployment rate. The federal government should also explore strategies that encourage more people to participate in PSE, as a long-term solution to unemployment problems.

• 1140

In conclusion, I would like to point out again our need for a national accord on education. Although there are many areas of research that still need to be explored, in order to make policy decisions about accessibility to PSE in this country, none of us can deny the utmost importance of its role in building our nation. The members of CASA believe that a university or college education must be affordable, so every qualified person in this country can have access to it.

Next, we believe that a student must be able to retain his or her right to interprovincial mobility when accessing the PSE system. Again, a national accord on education would address the problems students have in moving from province to province. It would also address the financial concerns some provinces have with importing students.

Finally, CASA believes the federal government should take a leadership role in encouraging Canada's youth to participate in PSE, by demonstrating the opportunities it currently creates and helping to create new ones.

Thank you once again for your time.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Thank you, in particular, for the tables in your written brief, which are very useful.

Jim Turk of the Canadian Association of University Teachers is next.

Mr. James Turk: Thank you, Peter.

Committee members, you're in a unique position at the moment. Since the 1950s, Canada has developed a very interesting and important post-secondary education system that has characteristics that aren't shared by many others in the world.

One of the principal characteristics is the consistency of quality. In our university system, there is no bad Canadian university. There are variations in resources from large research doctoral institutions to smaller liberal arts institutions, but largely as a result of the role the federal government has played, starting in the 1950s, in providing funding to Canada's universities and our public system of universities, we can assure that a student, regardless of what province he or she lives in, and regardless of what university he or she decides to go to, can get a good quality education.

As well, in the last 30 years, there's been a greater emphasis on accessibility, to assure that every qualified Canadian has access to post-secondary education.

Both of these things are now in jeopardy, in part because of actions taken by the federal government and in part because of actions taken by provincial governments.

The first major factor has been the significant underfunding of our post-secondary institutions. The second, as a link to the underfunding, has been the dramatic increase in tuition fees. The third has been the elimination of grants for students, by provincial governments. These have combined to produce several things, one of which I want to talk about today.

The one I'm not going to elaborate on in my remarks is the growing differentiation amongst our universities, which is pushing us to a more American-style system, where you have a few wonderful universities, a number of good universities, and a lot of universities that are less than adequate. That hasn't been our experience. The federal government's role has prevented that from being our experience, but as a result of the federal government's failure to provide adequate core funding for universities, it is going to become our experience.

I want to deal in my remarks now, though, with the issue of access. Previous speakers have alluded to the growing gap in accessibility between middle-income Canadian families and lower-income Canadian families. The data, as Ian Boyko from the Canadian Federation of Students pointed out to you, is only up to 1994. There isn't more recent data from Statistics Canada, and that's the period when we've had the greatest increase. Presumably, the gap that grew significantly between 1989 and 1994 is greater yet today. I'm sure, if you talk with your constituents, you'll find a widespread concern about whether they can afford to send their children on to college and university.

But there's also the lessened ability, related to income, to save. Again, previous speakers have made reference to the fact that while 85% of Canadians who earn $30,000 or less a year want to save for their children's education, only 18% are able to do so; whereas if you look at those who earn over $80,000, 95% of them want to save, and more than two-thirds can and have done so.

This problem has not been effectively ameliorated, despite the best intentions of the federal government's programs, such as the registered education savings plan, the Millennium Scholarship Foundation, and so forth.

• 1145

The proposal the federal government is making to extend the thinking behind the registered education savings plan into skills training and setting up learning accounts is even less sensible in addressing those needs. Poor Canadians, unemployed Canadians, people in marginal jobs, are least able to put aside savings to fund their own training, just as poor Canadian families are least able to put money into registered education savings plans, which can then be topped up with a 20% contribution from the federal government.

We estimate that the direct cost to the federal government is hundreds of millions of dollars being spent directly on registered education savings programs, in the grant portion as well as lost revenue, a tax expenditure. As I'll say in my conclusion, we think there are better resources that money can be put to.

The Canadian Association of University Teachers contracted with Decima to undertake a large national survey of Canadians' attitudes and experiences with regard to the federal role in post-secondary education. I'll be making copies of that survey available, Mr. Chair, to the committee.

Two-thirds of Canadians were critical of the role the federal government has played in post-secondary education in recent years. When asked who should have primary responsibility for funding post-secondary education, to our surprise—and this was a large poll we did, 2000 people across Canada, so we could get meaningful regional breakdowns—the largest plurality in each province in the country said the primary role for funding should lie with the federal government. When we asked the question of how to deal with decreasing accessibility, we gave a number of options, such as more merit-based grants, more needs-based grants, greater core funding, expanded loan programs, and so forth. The first choice was greater core funding for universities, so they wouldn't have to charge higher tuition. The second most popular choice was more needs-based grants. These are the two options that are not being fulfilled currently by the federal government.

Our recommendations to you are several. First, there has to be a significant increase in federal funding for core operations of the university. I want to second the remarks by my colleague Robert Giroux from AUCC, that when thinking about the issue of access, you have to think about three aspects, access, capacity, and quality. They all go together. There's no point in providing access to a poor quality system. You're not going to have a good quality system unless the institutions have the capability. But the highest quality system is not going to be of any use to Canada unless there's access to it for all Canadians who deserve that opportunity.

For the federal government to be able to do that—and I don't think there's any lack of desire on the part of this government to fulfil this request—the problem is how to fund it. The CHST has actually provided an obstacle to the federal government's providing funding, because the federal government is in a dilemma. To the extent that it puts more money into the CHST, it has no assurance that it is going to be spent on post-secondary education. It has been used by some provincial governments, in fact, to replace their funding. So it's a disincentive.

The Canadian Association of University Teachers has proposed to the government—and we'll make copies of this available to members of the committee—a post-secondary education act modelled on the Canada Health Act, which we think provides a vehicle that is likely to result in the achievement of the goals we all share, a first-class educational system that is accessible.

Of our other two recommendations, one is that the current RESP program should be replaced and those funds used to introduce an expanded needs-based grant system. It would be a far more equitable use of the money the government is currently spending.

Finally, we'd like to concur with the Canadian Federation of Students in urging the elimination of the discriminatory treatment of student borrowers. If I go to the bank and borrow $50,000, go to the Hull Casino, blow it all, and have to declare bankruptcy, I can do that. If I go to the bank or to the Canada student loans program and borrow $50,000, spend it on a university education, and find that I can't get adequate employment, I cannot declare bankruptcy. This is not smart public policy.

So we would urge those four recommendations on you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Jim. We appreciate it.

Now it's Bill Easton of the Canadian Medical Association working group on tuition. I know, Bill, from our previous experience, that you've taken a particular interest in the tuition aspect, so we appreciate your being here.

Mr. William Easton: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I'm pleased to be here on behalf of Dr. Peter Barrett, who is the president of the Canadian Medical Association. As you just heard, I chair the CMA board's working group on tuition, and I'm an Ontario physician in full-time practice.

• 1150

The Canadian Medical Association is very concerned about high and rapidly escalating undergraduate medical school tuition fees across Canada. The CMA believes that high tuition fees, coupled with insufficient financial support systems, will have a significant detrimental impact on not only current and potential medical students, but also the Canadian health care system and access to medical services.

I'd like to focus on three key issues that we believe have a profound impact on access to medical education. First, increasing—and in fact unprecedented—tuition fees. Within the past five years, average first-year tuition fees for Canada's 16 medical schools have increased by 100%. Currently first-year tuition fees in Ontario are $10,000 or more in three of its five medical schools; at Dalhousie in Nova Scotia, almost $8,000; and in Manitoba, more than $7,000 per year.

When obligatory costs of food, housing, transportation, and medical instruments—estimated by the CMA as being nearly $13,000 in year one of medical school—are added to tuition costs, a first-year medical student enrolled at the University of Toronto would have needed more than $27,000 this year alone just to cover expenses. Now if you compare that to the combined Canada student loan and Ontario student assistance maximums of approximately $15,800 per year, it becomes clear that students' financial needs are not being met.

My next point relates to the savings burden. According to a Statistics Canada study, the vast majority of parents hope their children will get some form of university or college education. However, in the case of more than half of these children, their parents have not set aside savings for their post-secondary schooling. Based on HRDC estimates, the monthly savings required to finance a bachelor of arts degree range from $150 per month with an 18-year savings period, to $350 per month with 8 years to save, to close to $1,000 per month with only 3 years to save. Please remember that this is per child.

It's likely that most students can't count on this level of savings from their parents, and as a result end up having to rely on government or high-interest bank loans. By the time these students graduate with a bachelors degree they have accumulated large debt loads. The prospect of incurring an additional and even more substantial debt load while pursuing a degree in medicine may deter a broad range of otherwise qualified students.

My final point speaks to the impact of high tuition fees. The creation of economic barriers to medical school application threatens the diversity of the future population of physicians. Massive debt loads on graduation may exacerbate the brain drain to the U.S., where physicians can pay off their debt far more quickly.

In summary, it's clear that the dramatic rise in medical tuition will pose a significant barrier to access to a medical education for many Canadians. The CMA sees a strong role for the federal government in ensuring equitable access to programs leading to an MD degree. We also believe that the federal government should work with its provincial and territorial counterparts to address the following recommendations.

One, to alleviate the pressures driving tuition increases, the federal government should increase transfer of payments to the provinces and territories, with targeted amounts for post-secondary education.

Two, any tuition increase should be regulated and reasonable.

Three, financial support systems for students must be non-coercive; developed concomitantly or in advance of any tuition increase; in direct proportion to the tuition increase; and provided at levels that meet the needs of students.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Again, thank you for the table. We appreciate it.

Now it's Lucille Auffrey,

[Translation]

she is the Executive Director of the Canadian Nurses Association. Lucille.

Ms. Lucille Auffrey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to all of you, committee members.

First of all, I would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to talk to you about some very important issues facing the nursing profession. Today I am representing the interests of 110,000 members and those of our president, Dr. Ginette Lemire Rodger.

• 1155

Since you have a copy of our presentation, I would like to go directly to page 6 of the document because, as far as we are concerned, the cost of post-secondary education and access are the burning issues.

[English]

For Canadian nurses, access means the right knowledge, within the right timeframe and within the right financial imperative. With regard to assuring the provision of knowledge, the deputy minister of health of Nova Scotia paints a rather distressing but useful picture of challenges facing post-secondary continuing education for health professionals. He speaks about the health sector as an industry where new ideas evolve every half-hour, but where curricula takes a minimum of two years to change, and where, I would add, recruiting is a very competitive process against more rewarding and less taxing professions.

Peter Drucker has said that nurses are the original knowledge workers. Nursing is practised in hospitals, in communities, and in homes. Nurses work independently and in teams. They practice in rural and very remote posts, as well as in urban settings. Nurses treat people who are sick and advise people how to stay healthy, and they deal with life and death situations. That said, it is easy to see why nursing requires the use of scientific knowledge, ethical values, and ethical and analytical skills usually acquired through university programs.

Today, as compared to when I started post-secondary education, there are many career options, especially for women. Regrettably, I must say that nursing is still today principally a female-based profession. My career choices were further limited by financial considerations. Then, as it is today, financial realities impacted on people's choices of careers. Nursing and teaching careers were the two affordable options then. Even at that, I had to work for five years before being able to attend a university nursing education program. That is not what Canadian parents want for their children today and it is not what today's students want.

I believe the earning potential for nurses over their careers is still limited, compared to other professions. This limited earning potential is seen as a detriment to choosing a career in nursing, especially when one has to consider that 42% of nurses who graduate today are still only finding part-time work. That is unacceptable to us. Moreover the cost of continuing education is not recognized as a tax deduction for nurses as it is for other professionals. Action is needed to address the financial impediments to choosing nursing as a career.

How do we facilitate access to post-secondary education? How does education more readily embrace research results? What role can post-secondary education play in this fast-paced, specialized environment? How can post-secondary education help the health professional acquire knowledge and skills related to advances in technology and, equally important, in practice?

From CNA's perspective, the answers to these questions lie in a national strategy and in improved federal-provincial relations in this matter, so important to Canadians. We believe Canada needs a responsible and dynamic national strategy for recruitment, integration, and retention of the health workforce.

The national strategy must focus on access to post-secondary education. It must ensure a level playing field among all provinces for people considering a career in the health sector. It must introduce flexibility into post-secondary curricula: flexibility in terms of ensuring course content that reflects new evidence and technological advances; and flexibility in terms of enrolment of students. We believe we must look to the experience of other countries, which enable people to acquire post-secondary education while continuing to work in other roles in the health sector.

• 1200

A pan-Canadian strategy must always ensure that in all provinces, and in urban as well as rural areas, knowledge workers—including health professionals—have access to continuing learning opportunities. To make it happen, knowledge—evidence, research results, and learning—must become accessible. A pan-Canadian strategy must address the impediments of geography, workload, and cost. It must draw upon the experience of industries other than health, industries where employers work with university communities to offer e-learning in the workplace. And a pan-Canadian strategy would contribute to the development of a highly competitive and productive health workforce, a sector that can attract and retain nurses as well as other health professionals in the face of global competition.

Finally, a pan-Canadian strategy must focus on three important tasks in order to move forward: improving access by providing tuition support for individuals for basic and continuing education; facilitating access to e-learning technology and programs; and connecting research results within curriculum development and practice.

What I as well as others have outlined today is an ambitious agenda for a federal government uniquely positioned to lead the development and implementation of a pan-Canadian strategy for recruiting, integrating, and retaining health professionals. I believe Canada's health sector is well positioned in certain areas as the federal government has created a very vibrant research infrastructure through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Canada Foundation for Innovation and the centres of excellence, and the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, but we must do more.

I will be pleased to answer your questions.

[Translation]

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[English]

You realize that as members of Parliament we're very pleased to have you here with the CMA, because it provides us with a great deal of representation, particularly in the areas of education and research in the health sector. So thank you very much for that.

The next witness

[Translation]

Arpi Hamalian, president of the Fédération québécoise des professeures et professeurs d'université.

Ms. Arpi Hamalian: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We would like to thank the members of the committee for this invitation and we are cognizant of the pivotal role that this committee may play to improve post-secondary education in Canada.

Our comments are based on our vision of university as a public service. This definition is tied to the concept of a university at the service of each and every one of us, as a common asset and as part of our collective heritage, as a place where one finds success, where one qualifies. This is not the university-client; this is the university-citizen. This definition, which requires further clarification and which needs to be proposed, is one where university is viewed as a public service.

In our text, we discussed ten features that define university as a public service, but I will skip this part for the time being. For those who need a text, I have brought copies with me.

First of all, we need to recall some promises made back in 1976 when there was a commitment to eliminate tuition fees for post-secondary education. In 1976, Canada signed the UN Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, thereby pledging to abolish tuition fees for post-secondary education.

Canada also pledged to make higher learning accessible to all using appropriate means and by gradually introducing free access to post-secondary education, by eliminating tuition fees.

Twenty-five years later, tuition fees are rising and student debt is reaching unprecedented proportions.

Now that the federal government and most provinces have achieved a zero deficit and now that both government levels are registering impressive budgetary surpluses, it is time to eliminate tuition fees in all Canadian universities.

• 1205

Accessibility is achieved by guaranteeing core funding. This point has already been raised several times and we would like to repeat it. University is a public service because the education and training of young people, up to and including the university level, are public responsibilities and because the State must endeavour to train individuals who are free thinkers, responsible, with critical minds, and who are active, committed members of society.

Accordingly, the State, at both levels, has a commitment with respect to universities. The State must therefore, using every means available, make university as accessible as possible to young people. All studies show that young people tend to stay in school if they are able to study on a full time basis.

Guaranteed adequate core funding is also required to achieve access to post-secondary education for Aboriginal groups and the disabled, two groups whose integration and success require systematic monitoring with follow-up being provided for several years.

Accessibility must cover all disciplines. The economic basis is but one of the perverse means that can create barriers to accessibility. All disciplines at the undergraduate university level must be able to develop: the arts, the humanities, the social sciences, health science, education, pure and applied science.

Through its government policy, the government must be able to commit adequate public funding to ensure that all university disciplines are offered. If university education is redirected to focus on the training of a skilled workforce, a workforce that is supposedly prepared to enter the job market in areas with the greatest needs, we run the risk of severely limiting the content of university education, and of depreciating its status. In the long run, we could even foresee the scenario whereby a whole chapter of university teaching would come to an end, replaced by long distance learning that is designed, programmed and tailored to meet the needs of a targeted student clientele.

The renewal and recruiting of the university teaching profession without special targeting means guaranteed accessibility. My colleagues, particularly the AUCC, have already raised this issue. We must ensure that professors are hired in all disciplines that truly form the basis of university education. University core funding is important in order to ensure this type of accessibility because, in some disciplines, there are no professors, which is also a way of limiting accessibility to knowledge

Quality is dependent upon accessibility. With budget cutbacks, accessibility comes under attack in the name of quality. Disguised as an invitation to set quotas for university programs, the argument for quality does not, however, manage to mask reality. Student-professor ratios continue to decline, the number of regular professors is dropping dramatically, libraries and scientific equipment are either inadequate or deteriorating and job insecurity, now the systemic and preferred way of dealing with financial constraints, is having a negative impact on the monitoring and general quality of the training provided to students.

The Fédération québécoise des professeures et professeurs d'université dismisses any proposal aimed at differentiating tuition in accordance with the discipline chosen. It also strongly opposes those advocating that tuition fees should vary in accordance with job and income outlook. Moreover, the federation does not support the scenario whereby tuition fees should be differentiated for each university level and it is even more strongly opposed to suggestions to liberalize tuition fees, namely, allowing each establishment to set its own fees, a solution which would tend to create a hierarchy of universities by assigning a higher or lower economic value to the degrees offered.

• 1210

National and international mobility. First of all, the elimination of tuition fees would promote greater mobility of Canadian students beyond provincial borders and would provide equal opportunities and accessibility for everyone.

Secondly, the deregulation of tuition fees for foreign students. The federation is opposed to this type of deregulation. This measure casts a shadow over the role and the mission that the provinces and Canada wanted to play internationally as a most favoured nation.

This type of provision may also result in another perverse effect, the two-tiered university system. We would have wealthy universities, for example, those with significant endowment funds, that would easily be able to impose this type of additional tuition fees, unlike the less wealthy universities.

Thirdly, bursaries for Canadian students who wish to study outside of their province or Canada. The federation is pleased with such initiatives, but the budget envelope for this type of bursary is too modest at both the provincial and federal levels. In addition, we must ensure that the amount of the bursary given is not so insufficient so as to unavoidably penalize poor students whose families will not be able to finance the larger and more costly portion of the other fees.

Finally, Canadians are demanding public funding for post-secondary education. Polls conducted by Decima for the ACPPU and by CROP for the FQPPU attest to the widespread conviction held by the majority of the population that post-secondary education must be financed by the State.

Currently, the most positive step that the federal government could take would be to give back to the provinces their fair share of the money they are owed so that they can reassume their responsibilities with respect to education and university research, two indissociable missions, as well as service to the community, the third mission of the university.

In this regard, we supported the initiative taken by our colleagues from the ACPPU to hold a public forum for modelling this transfer process after the one used for the health transfers.

The federation is strongly advocating that the State assume its political responsibility and not turn post-secondary education into a piece of merchandise.

We think that the State cannot ignore the fact that the democratization of higher education that it seems to want, namely the access to education for those who are willing and able to study, must take into account the cost of education and therefore, the economic condition of students, who are more indebted today than ever before. Clearly, here again, and perhaps above all, the State's investment is vital. Our future depends on it.

You have heavy duties and responsibilities.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Arpi.

[English]

The next witness is Frank Smith, the national coordinator of the National Education Association of Disabled Students.

Frank.

Mr. Frank Smith: Thank you.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank members of the committee for inviting our organization to appear before you to discuss this important topic. The National Education Association of Disabled Students—NEADS—was established in 1986 to represent post-secondary students with disabilities across Canada. The association has a national office in Ottawa, a provincial member group in Quebec, and a network of campus-based disabled students groups and accessibility committees throughout the country.

The association is governed by a board of directors made up of students with disabilities, with representatives from all of the provinces and territories.

To highlight a few of our affiliations, we are a member group of the Council of Canadians with disabilities and we, sit on the HRDC National Advisory Group on Student Financial Assistance and the national Council on Access to Information for Print-Disabled Canadians.

Considering the limited time, I will keep my remarks fairly brief this morning. The subject of this committee meeting—access to post-secondary education, financing and mobility—relates directly to the ongoing work of our association. NEADS and its members advocate the need for greater access to college and university education in consultations with governments and in our national and local meetings.

A major initiative of NEADS in the past two years has been to develop a comprehensive national directory of financial assistance programs for post-secondary study. This directory has been developed with significant student input and is available online on the association's website.

We feel it is important to offer detailed information on programs to assist people with disabilities in their pursuit of post-secondary studies, as these programs vary so greatly from one part of the country to the next.

• 1215

Indeed, the release of In Unison 2000: Persons with Disabilities in Canada by the federal, provincial, and territorial ministers of social services at the end of March is important to our discussions at this meeting.

In Unison 2000 involved a process of consultation with disability organizations over the past year. Members of our board of directors were involved in those consultations. This report makes clear the importance of educational attainment to participation in Canada's labour market and speaks of this in terms of the citizenship rights of Canadians with disabilities.

The document also indicates that persons with disabilities are participating in greater numbers in post-secondary education. At the same time, the report cites disparities in the delivery of programs, funding, services, and support to persons with disabilities across the country and how this can lead to barriers and inequities.

For NEADS and its membership of post-secondary students and graduates across Canada there are several key issues that are the focus of our work as an organization. While more disabled persons realize the benefits of education for their futures, accessing sufficient funding to pursue college and university education is still a problem for many.

In 1999, NEADS released a study called Working Towards a Coordinated National Approach to Services, Accommodations, and Policies for Post-Secondary Students with Disabilities. Close to 400 students and 70 campus service providers were involved in the research. Based on the findings in the study and the access issues identified by students with disabilities in post-secondary education across Canada, a number of recommendations were made in the study's concluding chapter. Some of the major recommendations include the following.

Disability service provision must be fully supported by post-secondary institutions and governments with sufficient financial and human resources to meet student needs. The accessibility of colleges and universities is a very important consideration when disabled persons select a post-secondary institution, but it is clear that academic program choice is the number one priority.

Therefore, meeting the academic objectives of the disabled student population in Canada requires as wide a network as possible of fully accessible colleges and universities and sufficient funding to meet the needs of these students. Accessible post-secondary education begins with a commitment of funding to enhance federal transfer payments, an allocation of resources to colleges and universities from provincial governments, and a commitment by individual schools to support and enhance physical access to services and accommodations for all students with disabilities.

Students with disabilities need to have access to services and programs that may or may not be available in their home province as well. They must be able to receive the best and most appropriate education regardless of their geographic location. Therefore, support to disabled students should be fully portable, and these students should retain the right to move from one province to another in order to obtain an education.

Some of the problems of portability of services and funding are addressed in the In Unison report. In fact, with the implementation of employability assistance for persons with disabilities—the EAPD program—and its focus on employability, support for post-secondary study in a number of jurisdictions is less than it was under the previous VRDP program. In Ontario, for example, there is no support for post-secondary education under its ODSP program.

In the area of financial aid, the Canada student loans program and its Canada study grants does provide grant funding for disabled students up to $5,000 per loan year, but this funding is for disability-specific educational supports, services, and equipment and is only available to those students who are eligible to receive a Canada student loan. In fact, disabled students need to have access to more grants than loans to participate equally in post-secondary education, considering the extra costs of disability while in school and that it often takes longer to complete a program of study because of disability. Also, it is much more difficult to get a job after graduation, and for this reason disabled persons are particularly vulnerable to high student debt in our loan-based system.

So what are some current problems that particular groups of disabled students face? While progress is being made, many schools, particularly large campuses with old buildings, still have great problems with physical access. Learning disabled students are now the largest group of students with disabilities in college and university, and yet they are often faced with huge costs for diagnostic assessments, assessments required by most schools for these students to receive necessary accommodations.

• 1220

An announcement in the 2000 federal budget that up to $1,200 of the cost of a diagnostic assessment would be covered as an eligible education-related expense under the Canada study grant for students with permanent disabilities is a step in the right direction. However, this coverage is only available for those students eligible for CSLP. In Quebec, which has an otherwise excellent bursary program for disabled students, learning disabled students are still not recognized for support by the government.

Canadian students who are blind and visually impaired have difficulty accessing texts in appropriate alternate formats for their studies. At the same time, more resources are needed to support fully equipped, adaptive technology centres on our campuses. There are also serious problems in the post-secondary system for deaf students. There is a lack of qualified sign language interpreters in this country and insufficient funding in many jurisdictions to cover the cost of interpreter services. There is no government funding for sign language interpreters and captioners in private vocational schools. It's also becoming increasingly difficult to receive financial aid for study in excellent American schools, including Gallaudet University.

These are just a few of the issues that members of this committee should consider today and in your future deliberations. The National Educational Association of Disabled Students will be pleased to work with you to address these areas to ensure that persons with disabilities in Canada have an equal opportunity to succeed in post-secondary education and make the transition as full participants in the employment market.

Thank you, again.

The Chair: And thank you also. It's a very important aspect of access that you address, and I'm very pleased that the chair of our subcommittee for the persons with disabilities, Caroline Bennett, is here. I know they have heard some of the arguments you've made before, so we're very grateful to you for being here.

The last witness, and without a doubt the most important, is Claude Paul Boivin. I should explain. Claude is here representing the National Professional Association Coalition on Tuition, which is what the name suggests—a coalition dealing with all the professions that have concerns with high tuition. But in real life, he's the executive director of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association.

Claude Paul Boivin.

Mr. Claude Paul Boivin: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The National Professional Association Coalition on Tuition, NPAC, brings together nine national associations concerned about the negative effect of high tuition fees on access to education. NPAC is also concerned, Mr. Chairman, about the ensuing threat to the supply of professionals to serve the needs of the Canadian public.

In my comments today, I want to highlight three points: first, the combination, on the one hand, of high tuition fees and the resulting high student debt level, on the other hand, are a definite social-economic barrier to university education and professional programs; second, high debt load may increase the brain drain to the United States; and third, high tuition fees, in our view, place an undue pressure on individual students in professional programs.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, NPAC is made up of the Canadian Federation of Students and eight national professional associations that represent the fields of architecture, dentistry, law, nursing, medicine, pharmacy, physiotherapy and veterinary medicine. The president of NPAC is with us here this morning, Dr. William Easton, who spoke to you earlier this morning.

[English]

Mr. Chairman, the social-economic barriers to application to post-secondary education in professional programs are quite evident. High tuition fees, as well as fear of accumulating high debt loads by students, may deter people who traditionally have lower incomes from pursuing an education that would lead to a professional career. Earlier, Dr. Easton provided some specific examples on just how prohibitive the cost of a medical education is likely to be for most Canadian families.

With regard to our second point on the brain drain, we should—and must—recognize that offers from American recruiters to pay off high debt loads will increasingly attract professional graduates to the U.S. and probably elsewhere. This may be particularly true for health care professionals. For those communities that already face significant challenges in accessing professional services, such as rural and remote areas, high debt loads may generate fewer professionals available or interest in practising in those communities.

• 1225

High tuition fees and insufficient financial support systems will also have a very negative impact on the students themselves in their individual lives. Government financial support programs, such as bursaries and loans, are not increasing in proportion to students' needs. In addition, many students in professional programs have no or very limited opportunities to earn an income while they are in school. As a consequence, the number of students who must rely on interest bearing bank loans to help support themselves will likely increase dramatically.

Some students have already accumulated debt from a previous degree, because, as you know, in some professional programs a previous degree is a prerequisite. Also, repayment of interest on bank loans cannot be postponed until after graduation.

Mr. Chairman, each of these factors, along with the stress of trying to make ends meet, will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the health and well-being of individuals studying in professional programs, especially if they have a spouse or dependants to support.

Finally, there is one point that has not been brought up today on tuition fees, and that is the consequence they may have on the Canadian economy. The income that newly graduated professionals would otherwise be spending on high-ticket items such as homes, automobiles, and financial investments would now need to be allocated towards years of paying off high debt loads.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, we respectively make three recommendations: one, that governments work together to ensure regulated and reasonable tuition fees; two, that the federal government increase its funding of post-secondary institutions to alleviate some of the pressures driving tuition fee increases; and finally, that financial support systems for students be (a) non-coercive, (b) developed at the same time or in advance of any tuition increase, (c) be in direct proportion to the tuition fee increase, and (d) be provided at levels that meet the needs of students.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Merci beaucoup, Claude.

I want to thank you all for your patience and again thank you all for being here. This is, as you know, the second meeting we've had on this topic. We have another. I hope you realize that we, on all sides, realize it's a very important one.

The way we proceed on this committee is we have roughly five-minute exchanges. We try to move through the members in the usual way. Given our unusual configuration, the opposition members are on my left, government members on my right. On the list I have at the moment, it's Carol Skelton, Raymonde Folco, Paul Crête, Alan Tonks, Yvon Godin, Anita Neville, and then probably Carol Skelton again, I would think is the way it would be, and Carolyn Bennett.

So it's Carol Skelton.

Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): First of all, I'd like to thank you all for coming to visit us today and presenting your briefs to us.

There were three things that were brought up briefly. Mr. Arbuckle mentioned tax credits for students. Mr. Turk mentioned needs-based grants. Ms. Hamalian talked about free tuition. I would like you to tell me more about your tax credits, the needs-based grants and how we would work that, and the free tuition for students.

Can you explain a bit more, starting with Liam?

Mr. Liam Arbuckle: Concerning our idea of increasing the tax credit, currently you have a certain maximum level you can transfer to, say, your parents who currently most people are dependent on for tuition items. Basically, if in the earlier years you reach that maximum without being able to transfer any more, by increasing that, you can receive benefit in the following years when you actually are accruing that much tuition. Our idea, although a new one, hopefully is to accrue that benefit in the later years when you are paying the higher tuitions.

Ms. Carol Skelton: Okay.

The Chair: Mr. Turk.

• 1230

Mr. James Turk: The need to shift increasingly to needs-based and then to reintroduce a grant system is something we think is important. Actually, the first person who brought it up was Ian Boyko from the Canadian Federation of Students, so I'll defer to him to elaborate, because they've done the primary work on this issue.

Mr. Ian Boyko: As far as needs-based grants are concerned, there are many different models. We'd be happy to provide some specific examples of how the implementation would occur and the costs incurred. But I can give a few general statements on why we think they're superior to loans as a form of student assistance, and first, a little background for the committee.

Canada is in a tiny minority of countries in the world without a national system of needs-based grants. I believe it's one among three. So it's a system that is a proven winner in other countries, and it's something Canada should clearly look at seriously. But also there's money being allocated to certain programs that are being touted as financial assistance and ways to improve access. I mentioned the registered education savings plans and the Canada education savings grants. As I mentioned in my presentation, the money budgeted for those two programs isn't being directed at students who are most in need. It's being directed at families who already have the capacity to save for education. By replacing these two programs with the system of needs-based grants, that money would be better directed, as the program suggests, to those who need the program the most. The costs are remarkably similar. I believe if you had to account for all of the families who could potentially apply for the Canada education savings grant, that's an expenditure of almost $3 billion. That's around some of the calculations we have for what it would cost for a certain level of needs-based grants open to all students in need.

I hope that answers your question.

Ms. Carol Skelton: I would like more information on it, if you could supply some for me, please.

The Chair: Ian, if you have any other information, the committee would be glad to receive it. Go ahead, Carol.

Ms. Carol Skelton: Yes, Arpi.

Ms. Arpi Hamalian: If we consider all the expenditures we put out for administering all sorts of different schemes, without necessarily making access more open to those in need, money going into the pockets of big financial institutions, I think we will be able to open up access to higher education to all qualified Canadians. It is in this spirit, first, that we advocate the abolition of tuition, because all the studies that have been done show that we can abolish tuition for the same amount as goes into administering all the different schemes we have now.

Second, I think it is a duty of a country that is at the level of development we are to invest directly in the future of its youth.

Third, I think, as Monsieur Boivin mentioned, the sooner we get the students out as active citizens—this is the economic argument, which is not necessarily the first, but is very important in that it may move other people who are not moved by the ethical arguments—the sooner the economy will benefit from the education the youth have received in our universities.

These are just three basic principles, but we can add to them and we can provide data in support.

The Chair: Carol, we'll get back to you again fairly soon.

It's Raymonde Folco, followed by Paul Crête, Alan Tonks, Yvon Godin.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Don't mention it.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I'm always pleased when my name is pronounced correctly.

The Chair: Yes, it's Raymonde.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I would like to discuss the other part of the reason for this afternoon's meeting, namely the mobility of post-secondary students. Mr. Giroux stated in his brief:

A quality higher education today means ensuring that more students have an international dimension to their studies...

• 1235

Obviously, I fully agree with what you say in this brief, but may I propose a priority: before ensuring that students have free access to international education, they should have very free access to education that I might not qualify as national, but at least education within Canada, since we really don't have a national education system here in this country.

This is a historical fact. Universities are part of this problem; but there are others. For instance, there are the professional associations. There are doctors and nurses who cannot work in every province, if I'm not mistaken. That is also the case for lawyers and so forth.

Still, there have been some attempts by the Canadian government to try to put all this in a national perspective. I think that it was Mr. Ian Boyko who referred to a bill or a legislative measure for post-secondary education that would in some respects resemble legislation on health care, and which would contain at least one element, in my opinion, that would be important, namely the opportunity to transfer from one university to another. It is true that when there is a lack of mobility, a certain kind of hierarchization, a ranking, occurs. Ms. Hamalian discussed it with regard to universities.

My question is as follows. Given the fact that we already have a framework agreement on the social union and that, as I firmly believe, many people who made presentations here today truly believe in the role that the federal government should play, how do you see the federal government taking action, the strategies or the role that the federal government should play to provide a greater mobility for students within Canada?

The Chair: Robert Giroux.

Mr. Robert Giroux: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I'd like to point out that your concern regarding mobility within Canada itself is completely justified. As you know, historically, there are approximately—and this goes back several years—9% of Canadian students who study outside their province. In the two central provinces, Ontario and Quebec, that figure drops to about 5%.

With regard to international mobility, I'd like to point out however that at least 1% of Canadian students do some kind of internship, be it an educational internship or a work-study internship, etc. We're not talking about a four-year degree here; we're talking about three months, six months or one year abroad. That is why we pointed out this aspect. We completely agree with you. It is very important that that mobility be increased.

The second point you raise is: what about the federal government's role? We see it from two points of view.

First of all, we believe that the federal government must exercise leadership with the provincial governments so that we can agree on major objectives, a very important mission in post-secondary education, and that an agreement can be reached so that the government can help the provinces so that they in turn make higher education a priority, which is necessary.

As you know, the problem with programs such as the Canada Health and Social Transfer and others is that in certain cases, the money is paid to the provinces, but the provinces do not commit to setting certain priorities.

We certainly kept a close eye on the health care agreement last year, and already, several provincial governments have stated that this was not sufficient, that more money had to be put into health care. I must say that there must be an agreement between the two levels of government in order to make post-secondary education a priority. A bill is a very difficult thing in a context like that, because I think a lot of energy would be wasted playing the federal-provincial jurisdiction game rather than coming to some agreement about a bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Jim Turk. Jim, you have to be fairly brief, as you know. I have to live with the MPs when you're all gone.

Mr. James Turk: Thank you.

Madame Folco, you've raised a number of questions, and in light of the chair's admonition, I would simply say that we do have the experience in Canada of a solution in another sector, and that is within health care. The Canada Health Act has helped assure equality of access and equality of quality in medical and health services across the country.

• 1240

Our organization, in the material I'm going to present you subsequently, suggests that the solution to the kinds of questions you raise lies in the adoption of a Canada post-secondary education act, modelled on the Canada Health Act. We've developed a model bill that addresses the many complicated issues that we don't have time to address. But we think one clear example of how these problems can be solved in education exists in this country in the Canada Health Act. We would be pleased to present to you the details of how that could be done.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I'd certainly like to have a copy of that. Thank you.

Mr. James Turk: It will be sent to you this afternoon.

The Chair: I hate to interrupt this, because I'm very interested. I have seen this material, Raymonde, and we'd be grateful, Jim, if the members of the committee could also receive it.

Next we have Paul Crête, Alan Tonks, Yvon Godin, Anita Neville, Carol Skelton, and Carolyn Bennett.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to thank all the witnesses.

I had to pinch myself two or three times to make sure I was in the right Parliament, because I really fail to see why you're knocking on the federal government's door in this way since this is a matter of purely provincial jurisdiction. Rather than having a paternalistic attitude and saying that the federal government should pass a law similar to the one on health care, why don't you place greater emphasis on the democratic responsibilities of the provinces? Go knock on the provinces' doors to ask them whether they are assuming their responsibilities properly and, in the final analysis, the conclusion will surely be that the federal government would have two choices.

This morning, I think the person who'd have a good laugh about this debate is Mr. Paul Martin. He managed to skirt around the debate on the surplus for a year and a half and last week he came here to tell us that he was saving fantastic amounts of money for us and that this was for our benefit. But with regard to these $15 billion about which he forgot to hold a debate—and admitted the omission was deliberate had it taken place in the past year, and had half the surplus been used for programs and the other half for reimbursing the debt, as was supposed to be the case according to the Prime Minister, wouldn't your funding problems had been at least partially resolved? Wouldn't that allow the provinces to stop having to jump through hoops, and to finally have to resort to raising tuition fees to make ends meet because of the shortfall that is caused by the federal government?

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Arpi Hamalian.

[Translation]

Ms. Arpi Hamalian: It's quite clear that education is a matter of provincial jurisdiction, and we exert the same pressures on the provinces. However, the federal government is looking for all kinds of ways to intervene and show some leadership. It is in that sense that it is important that we come here to talk to you too, because instead of showing leadership by putting money in the hands of the private sector, as is the case with the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, which is really administered by a private group, perhaps as much energy could be invested in coming up with agreements with the provinces in order to transfer funds directly to the provinces. A few parameters could be established such as abolishing tuition fees. Education is a right. Tuition fees must absolutely be abolished. We have the money and the means to do so.

We're here to tell you that the federal government can show leadership that will benefit the public. These are public investments that must be done in accordance with what already exists in the Constitution rather than going through the hands of the private sector. The same is true for bursaries. This is given to the banks to administer. So we're here to encourage you to show leadership through legislation that already exists in the Constitution or to foster a public debate. That's why the FQPPU supports the bill suggested by the CAUT in order to have a public discussion about how to use the surpluses that exist at all levels of government.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: I have three speakers already. We should keep it fairly short. It's Liam, then Jim, and then Bill.

Mr. Liam Arbuckle: I think it's fair to say that the federal government has always played a traditional role, whenever it becomes an interest of all Canadians. Obviously, education is an interest amongst all Canadians. The social union framework allows for the federal government to take a leadership role in it, and they should.

I think all Canadians benefit from an educated populace. In turn, that reflects on our economy, when we have skilled workers in the economy working away. Obviously, the government is in charge of the economy on a national focus. At CASA, we believe that a pan-Canadian agreement, styled after the Canada Health Act, as many witnesses here have said, would be beneficial to all Canadians, and not just at the provincial level.

• 1245

The Chair: Okay, next are Jim Turk and Bill Conrod.

Mr. James Turk: Mr. Crête, you remind us rightly that post-secondary education is generally a provincial responsibility. Also, we start from the supposition that the distinct nature of Quebec entitles it to certain rights that need to be respected in federal government actions.

The reality also of federal-provincial relations is that we saw, up until the early 1950s, the effect of the federal government not playing a significant role in funding post-secondary education. That was a remarkably inequitable system of post-secondary education across the country. In the 1950s and early 1960s, the federal government played an increasingly important role that made it possible to have the kind of system that provides accessibility and quality to students across the country.

What we've been wrestling with in the act is a way to respect the provincial jurisdiction—the uniqueness of Quebec—while at the same time providing a mechanism so that the federal government can play the kind of role we feel is essential, if we're going to have the type of post-secondary education system we all want.

The Chair: Okay.

Bill Conrod.

Mr. Bill Conrod: I have to stress the same thing. I'm looking at the picture over here, 134 years ago, and things were much simpler. But the fact is all of our briefs have suggested that this problem exists at two government levels, and that's part of the challenge. My sense is that the objective is a continuing, healthy, competitive economy, with a skilled workforce that is up-to-date and ready to take on anybody in any nation.

With that in mind, I don't think you can drop the ball on the leadership. You're not going to get it out of one province, I can tell you that. So I wish you good luck.

The Chair: Paul Crête, briefly.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I'm not talking about leadership in a single province. I think that each one of the provinces can play a leadership role, but there are other solutions that should be considered, such as the transfer of tax points. I think that it's folly to believe that we should give a paternalistic role to the federal government and then when you go and negotiate in the education sector to get legislation similar to the one for health care, there will be the same blackmail that goes on in the government right now. They have the money and the provinces end up having to agree to an insufficient compromise as was done two years ago, and we end up with billions of dollars that the provinces don't have and that they have to continue begging for. This is a system that institutionalizes begging from the federal government.

[English]

The Chair: Next are Alan Tonks, Yvon Godin, Anita Neville, and Carol Skelton.

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Thank you very much for your deputations. I noticed there is a commonality, in particular among those who are on the teaching side and those who are on the learning side—the students and the professors.

To use a bit of a clinical analogy, the analysis you've given us indicates the inequities in the present system. More and more, universities are relying on user fees from the students, to a higher extent as time goes on, to cover their operating costs. Consequently, the impact on the students is they have to borrow money, and the present programs are not supporting them. The amortization at the front end of their working lives is making it impossible for many of them to pay.

So the analysis leads some of you to conclude that we need to write a post-secondary education act. We need to redefine the relationships between the provinces and the federal government.

It seems to me, if we're rewriting the act, the present architecture, if you will, for support through the Millennium Scholarship Foundation, the registered education savings plan, the Canada education savings grant, and so on, is not going to cut it.

On the other hand, if we go to a needs-based regimen of grants—a universal program—we have two categories of individuals to which we have to adjust that program. We have people who have left the household and are on their own, studying in post-secondary institutions; those who are obviously doing post-graduate work; and those whose families are continuing to support them.

• 1250

You have indicated that for the most part, both categories need to be looked at because we're not talking about extremely wealthy people. We're talking about middle-income people who are attempting, within the taxation system, to support their families, and continue to do that. It's getting harder all the time. I think you'd all agree with that.

So if we could write the act and design the architecture, keeping in mind that our taxation system is our most vital tool, in terms of overcoming regressiveness, how would you construct that architecture? You've given us some indication, but if you could write that act and advise us—and possibly all of you can respond to this—I would be looking for the data you have built into your papers and your suggestions for guidance. If we were to take that direction, within the social union framework, what would you put in the act? What three or four things would you do first?

The Chair: Ian Boyko.

Mr. Ian Boyko: Yes. I think you've done an excellent job of outlining the problem. There are different classes within the Canadian society, that's a fact. How are we going to address all of them equally, to make sure access doesn't in some way let them off the hook with the cost? Jim Turk will get into the specifics of how the act would play a role in that.

I think it's very simple. My answer to that question isn't very complex at all. Again, you took the words right out of my mouth that the tax system is our primary tool for creating an equal playing field for students. If, as one of the members is suggesting, we abolished tuition, or had a system of needs-based grants, that would be universal, and we would recoup those costs through the tax system. We wouldn't see the continuing tax cuts that take away from the base that needs to fund education. We would look at that tax system as a way of creating that equal playing field.

If we have somebody from a wealthy family who can easily bear the costs of the student, but we've abolished tuition, is that family getting away from its obligatory costs of paying for the education? No. What they're not paying in user fees will eventually be collected through the tax system. That's our vision for how we would create that equal playing field amongst Canadian families.

The Chair: Next is Jim Turk, and then Bill Conrad, briefly.

Mr. James Turk: I must say members of this committee challenge us by asking questions that are very important and require extensive reply, when we have only a few minutes. So I'd be happy to continue this discussion at another time.

On the needs-based grant side of it, there is experience with how you deal with allocating resources based on need, and how you wrestle with the problem of the young person who's on his or her own, as opposed to the young person who's in a family. Whether it be the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation or the Canada student loans program, the majority of those are needs-based. So there is expertise in different systems in doing that, and we can explore those, but that's not a new problem that has to be overcome. There is a variety of solutions.

With respect to the tax system, I'm ambivalent when you say the tax system is our best tool. I would say it is and it isn't. I'm reminded again of Monsieur Giroux's advice to the committee. We're talking about three things here: capacity, quality, and access. Providing adequate core funding for universities is the cornerstone of any solution, and that isn't solved through the tax system.

Similarly, providing a means for accessibility for students is not primarily provided through the tax system, because the poorest don't pay tax. So any system that gives tax breaks benefits families in proportion to their income.

• 1255

On the other hand, it is related to the tax system in the sense that the funding for post-secondary education should come primarily from a progressive income tax system, and the much higher incomes that the graduates of universities and professional programs have will be reflected in higher payments that they'll make over the course of their life. There has been research in Australia that suggests the Australian government reaps a net benefit of $2.7 billion in excess tax revenue as a result of having a more educated population than they otherwise would have.

The Chair: Bill, I'm sorry, I have to move on to Yvon Godin, our colleague.

So it's Yvon, then Anita, Carol Skelton, Carolyn Bennett, Paul Crête, and then the chair, if we get that far.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to welcome you all. The tuition fees are the fees students pay to go to university. Since I arrived at this meeting, we didn't discuss... I'll give you an example from my province.

I'm from New Brunswick. We have the University of Moncton, and the University of New Brunswick in Fredericton. Not everybody lives in Moncton. Students who come from other regions of the province have to face enormous costs when they go to university and there's nothing to help them. We talk about tuition fees, but in fact there are all the other costs associated with getting a post-secondary education. We have to take a look at all the costs.

I'm not talking about those who live close to a university, but about those who come from elsewhere and who have to pay 40 to $50,000 to get a university degree. In some countries, this is free. It's an investment in our children. As Canadians, don't you think that we should make a decision as a government? Are we prepared to invest in our children or are we going to let them get into debt to the tune of 40 or $50,000? If they have a partner, that can mean another 40 or $50,000, which represents $100,000. If they buy a home, they're up to $180,000. If they buy a car to get to work, then it's up to $200,000. And they haven't even started a family yet.

As Canadians, shouldn't we show some leadership and say that we don't want our children to start off in debt like this and that we want our governments, through our taxes, to pay for our children's education?

Mr. Robert Giroux: Mr. Godin, I think that governments must exercise leadership, both at the federal and provincial levels, to ensure that institutions... You said that we mustn't refer only to larger cities. We have a lot of institutions in our regions, throughout the country, and these institutions must also be adequately funded in order to be able to offer a sound alternative to students so that they don't need to move to the major centres, where tuition fees are not their only costs. We're talking about costs that are often two or three times higher than the tuition fees alone because students have to be housed, fed, etc.

I return to the point made by James Turk. The solution is not just special help for students or direct student grants; there must also be adequate funding for institutions so that they can provide a quality education.

[English]

The Chair: Would someone else care to comment?

[Translation]

Lucille Auffrey.

Ms. Lucille Auffrey: Thank you, Mr. Godin. I think your point is well taken. In a discipline like ours, where we need to train a large number of practitioners able to make an appropriate contribution to the health system, access and program availability are very important.

Cost is certainly a factor, but I think the government has a very important role to play in encouraging universities and all post-secondary education institutions to consider appropriate technologies for cost reduction and a more interactive sharing of knowledge. The federal government has a very important role to play in this respect. Together we can surely come up with a social policy with a more common sense approach.

Countries like Ireland have done away with tuition fees and yet they are playing a leading role in areas of innovation. Why would Canada not do likewise? That is the question we must deal with.

• 1300

[English]

The Chair: Bill Conrod, and then Claude Boivin.

Mr. Bill Conrod: As a very quick point in response to Yvon's question, I think one of the dangers facing people in your seat concerns fairness. I don't see fairness as the objective here. I see that skilled and educated people at the end of their quest is really the objective. If the person from Stanbridge East has to be given a different formula than the person from Rimouski or from Pembroke, the end point of this whole thing is that this person is now working and is a taxpayer and puts the water back in the well. That's the issue of tax. Mr. Tonks was mentioning that this is an important issue. Well, I'll tell you, if we don't have people working, you're not going to get your tax money. So it's a question of investing right across the country, and if it needs to be done at two levels, then bring the two levels together.

Thank you.

The Chair: Claude Paul Boivin.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Paul Boivin: Mr. Godin, you are quite right, and our coalition agrees with you. Consideration must be given not only to tuition fees, but also the cost of living, particularly in university professional programs.

[English]

The Chair: We should finish, because it's now one o'clock, but we'll extend for a few minutes. If I could perhaps ask Anita Neville to share her time with Carolyn Bennett, I'd be grateful.

Ms. Anita Neville: I'll just make a very brief comment, because I have six or seven questions to throw out, but I'm not going to be able to.

Mr. Turk, you commented on the challenge that we posed to you through Mr. Tonks' question. What I would say to all of you here today is that you have certainly posed a substantial challenge to all of us. I'm struck by the fact that you come from such varying positions and that the underlying common theme we're hearing from you is, for me, in one respect, very reassuring, but quite overwhelming in terms of the response that's required.

I have a whole variety of questions. Mr. Conrod, you picked up on the question of fairness in terms of different regions. I was going to ask a question in terms of fairness, in terms of different community groups, different measures, whether it be disabilities or aboriginal.

I wanted to ask questions about articulation, what in fact is happening in mobility right now. I wanted to ask about the process of establishing national priorities and how you would see that. I wanted to ask questions in terms of capacity, how you build capacity in organizations and whether we look at virtual settings and whatever.

Those are some of my interests. I have many more listed here at the moment, but I'm going to turn it over to Dr. Bennett and let her ask her questions, and perhaps in your responses you might be able to incorporate some of my concerns as well.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): I had thought, of course, my question would be about students with disabilities, but I think Frank's presentation was pretty clear as to what we need to be doing.

My question, therefore, is about the potential for an asymmetrical solution in terms of our aboriginal people. I think they're hugely under-represented in post-secondary education. They therefore aren't even there to be brought to the table.

In talking with some of the band chiefs, they are very worried that there are kids graduating from high school from whom they then have to pick and choose as to which ones they send on to university, and the urban aboriginals quite often aren't chosen from various band councils to go to university.

One of the areas where we do have responsibility as a federal government is in terms of our aboriginal people. Would you support or suggest a separate fund for aboriginal students where the federal government paid the tuition directly, and would that help tilt or rebalance what I think is a real concern, particularly in the professional groups, nursing and medicine, where we know this is a problem?

The Chair: Bill Easton, and then Robert Giroux and Bill Conrod.

Mr. William Easton: Carolyn, I think you've raised a very important point. As you know, several of the universities have already taken an initiative on this, with Manitoba, Alberta, and British Columbia being in the forefront. So there are avenues where aboriginal students can pursue professional training that is not sponsored by any government agency.

There are bursary programs. As a matter of fact, the Canadian Medical Association has a bursary program, as does the Native Physicians Association of Canada, none of which would be sufficient to support a student all the way through professional education.

• 1305

So the short answer is, I think there does need to be an exceptional stream of funding for those deserving students of aboriginal origin who wish to and are able to pursue a professional career. I would support one.

Mr. Robert Giroux: Very briefly, yes, we are very interested in looking at a number of means and measures, but there's a fundamental question.

First of all, as you know with respect to aboriginals, there is a much smaller proportion who finish high school than the others. So you're dealing there with a very fundamental question.

The second point is the financing. Our universities are developing, and are very open to developing, all kinds of mechanisms and means to do it, but there is a limit to what the federal government has provided in terms of funding for post-secondary education.

There is also the question, a very fundamental one, that we represent the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College, which is a college that deals with aboriginals and is there for aboriginals, but there are very few of these institutions. There are some community colleges, for example, in B.C., but in our discussions with the Assembly of First Nations, for example, and so on, they've talked about institutions that would be geared toward providing some of the basic post-secondary education for aboriginals.

We would be quite open to sit down with your committee and explore what the universities could contribute on that front.

The Chair: Bill Conrod.

Mr. Bill Conrod: I think the question raised is an example of under-represented or under-participating groups of people in our country who we can't afford to let stay under-participating. We have to look at the disabled, at our aboriginal groups, at women and day care, and at prisons perhaps. We need a skilled workforce, and that's people. It's not robots, it's people. We have to go after them and do the things that group of people demand or require to get them up to a university or college level so that they can get the skills necessary to work.

The Chair: Anita Neville, briefly.

Ms. Anita Neville: Does anybody want to respond to any of the concerns I mentioned?

The Chair: Jim Turk.

Mr. James Turk: I'd love to respond to all of them.

Ms. Anita Neville: I'm very conscious of that, too.

Mr. James Turk: I'd like to come back to a comment made by Ian Boyko, from the Canadian Federation of Students.

One of the difficulties at the federal level is that there is no department or minister responsible for education. I think that provides a wonderful opportunity for this committee to take a leadership role.

I hope all the questions you posed that we can't answer and the questions that we haven't been able to answer for the others means your committee will take on the challenge of pursuing these matters. I'm sure all of us here would welcome the opportunity to have ongoing discussions with you, should you choose to do that.

There is a void, to some extent, in how these matters get dealt with, given our structure of federal government. So it would be a real challenge for your committee to take them on, and I'm sure all of us would be pleased to work with you in doing that.

The Chair: Bill Conrod, very briefly.

Mr. Bill Conrod: I'd echo what Mr. Turk has just said.

The Chair: Okay.

Colleagues and witnesses, there's another meeting in this room, so we must move on. I want to thank you all for coming here and thank you for your patience.

I hope you understand that this committee has been much taken up with legislative matters. We were dealing with the employment insurance bill, and as you know, when a committee is given legislation, we have to deal with it immediately. So the committee has worked very hard, and we've simply been able to find this time—and the previous meeting, and the meeting we'll be having on Thursday—to deal with these matters of access to education of all sorts.

Just so you know, on Thursday we're moving to, more broadly, the area of skills in Canada, as distinct from higher education, the professions, and so on, that we've been dealing with here.

We are most grateful to you all for being here.

The committee is adjourned until 11 o'clock on Thursday, in this same room.