Student Tuition and Accessibility
Student Loans and Debts
Francophone Minority Students
Aboriginal Students
Disabled Students
CHAPTER 2: Students
On the issues of accessibility to post-secondary education, Canada Student Loans and student debt loads, we found a marked contrast between the testimony and evidence of government officials and other witnesses who based their briefs on Statistics Canada information, on the one hand, and that of the students, student leaders, university and college student financial aid officers and a bank with a large investment in Canada Student Loans, on the other hand. The testimony of the former was measured and did not suggest an immediate crisis; the testimony of the latter, however, indicated that a substantial problem already exists for at least a growing minority of students.
We believe that the disparity in the testimony can be attributed to the fact that students and college/university officials are responding to the realities of a minority of students today, whereas the more complete information at the disposal of government officials and academics tends to date from 1995 or earlier and applies to a cross-section of all students.
Student Tuition and Accessibility
Full-time enrolment in post-secondary institutions has increased very rapidly since 1960, not only because of the "baby boom" but also because there has been a marked growth in the participation of women in higher education. Increases in enrolment were accompanied by expanded accessibility. Based on 1988 data, a report of the World Economic Forum found that, of the countries studied, Canada had the highest proportion of youth aged between 20 and 24 enrolled in colleges and universities.(1) Recent Statistics Canada figures confirm that Canada now has the highest rate of participation in post-secondary education among OECD countries: more than 46% of the Canadian population aged 25 to 64 has some post-secondary education compared to 32% of the population of the United States and 20% of the population of the OECD countries as a whole(2). At present, nearly 10% of the total adult population of Canada, or 2 million persons, participate in some form of post-secondary education every year(3). This revolution in accessibility went hand-in-hand with a decline in the real cost of tuition and with the provision, under the federal Canada Student Loans Program, of guaranteed loans to all qualified applicants with demonstrated need. The percentage of university operating costs covered by tuition fees, for example, declined from about 20% in 1971 to a low of 13% in 1981.(4)
Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, government support for the university sector increased greatly in real terms in response to the review that investment in education and research contributed substantially to economic growth and job creation. The physical plant, faculty and staff of our colleges and universities expanded rapidly to absorb successfully largely increased enrolments. Indeed, so rapid was the expansion of our post-secondary sector that the rate was almost certainly fiscally unsustainable. The expectation that the sharp decline in college-aged population would lower enrolments significantly, and the pressure of other public spending priorities, resulted in a sharp deceleration in spending for post-secondary education in the late 1970s and early 1980s. But, in reality, the participation rate continued to rise and this, combined with inflation and the first wave of government spending freezes, began a rapid drop in per-student public support, as illustrated in the following Figure.
FIGURE 4: Operating Revenue Per Student in Constant 1986 $
In constant 1986 dollars, government grants per full-time equivalent student fell from $8,942 to $6,945 (that is, by about 22%) between 1979 and 1985. After a period of relative stability in the late 1980s, the current government focus on deficit reduction was initiated and led to additional cutbacks(5). Again expressed in constant 1986 dollars, government support to universities over the whole 1978-1995 period fell by 31%, from $8,942 to $6,200 per full-time-equivalent student and the 1996-1997 federal and provincial budgets reduced government support below $6,000 per student, almost 36% below the peak of support in 1978.(6)
The participation rate of 19-24-year-olds in university has continued to increase throughout the 1990s, rising from 15.7% in 1990 to 18.6% in 1995; however, the rate of increase was incremental in 1995. Enrolment reached a peak in 1993 and then declined slightly in both 1994 and 1995. The evolution of university enrolments (full-time-equivalent) and the participation rate of 19-24-year-olds are shown below.
FIGURE 5: Enrolments and Participation Rates Since 1975
| Year
|
Full-time university enrolments |
Part-time university enrolments |
Full-time equivalent university enrolments |
Enrolment growth rate (%) * |
Percentage of 19- to 24-year-olds in university |
| 1975 | 369,706 | 185,406 | 422,679 | ... | 8.3 |
| 1980 | 382,617 | 245,128 | 452,654 | 3.6 | 10.0 |
| 1985 | 467,304 | 284,898 | 548,703 | 1.5 | 12.4 |
| 1990 | 532,131 | 309,197 | 620,473 | 3.1 | 15.7 |
| 1991 | 553,953 | 313,328 | 643,475 | 3.7 | 16.6 |
| 1992 | 569,480 | 316,165 | 659,813 | 2.5 | 17.5 |
| 1993 | 574,320 | 300,284 | 660,115 | 0.0 | 18.2 |
| 1994 | 575,704 | 283,252 | 656,633 | -0.5 | 18.5 |
| 1995 | 573,185 | 273,225 | 651,249 | -0.8 | 18.6 |
* This refers to annual growth in full-time-equivalent enrolment.
Derived from: Statistics Canada, Table 1, Cat. 81-003-XPB, Vol.4, no.2
Universities and colleges across Canada have responded to the dwindling commitment of government resources in a number of ways. They have become more efficient and have eliminated a lot of waste from their operations. The operating costs of universities in the 1980s, for example, fell by 15% on a per-student basis. Since then, however, operating costs per student have risen, influenced by the costs of increasing salaries for a maturing professoriat and of early retirement packages to reduce faculty complements. Post-secondary institutions have also responded to declining government support by postponing capital projects and by reducing facilities replacement and repair as well as routine maintenance to the bare minimum; the net result has been the undeniable rundown of the physical infrastructure of universities and colleges. The intellectual infrastructure has suffered as well: in constant dollars per student, by 1993 library expenditures had fallen by 20% from their peak in the early 1970s(7).
The Special Committee recommends:
(2) that the Federal Government begin negotiations with the provinces on a joint program to arrest the accelerating deterioration of the physical infrastructure and libraries of colleges and universities; that the institutions be asked to maintain an up-to-date list of their overdue maintenance and renovation needs; and that the two levels of government commit funds to these projects at the earliest possibility.
The Canadian Association of University Business Officers has a consistent framework for reporting, and annually publishes, comparable financial data for all universities; but we understand that it has no counterpart system for identifying, measuring and reporting on deferred maintenance. The American Association of University Plant Administrators has a handbook for this purpose, but compliance with it is voluntary. In implementing the above recommendation, strategic compilation of deferred maintenance data (regrettably, but understandably) is to be expected unless all institutions are required to report their deferred maintenance needs on a uniform basis. We trust that CAUBO would be prepared to have a high-level task force develop an appropriate reporting standard for this purpose.
We were unable to elicit more than an occasional comment from students and staff about the perception of a decline in the academic quality of post-secondary education. Students occasionally referred to being unable to take particular courses because the demand for spaces exceeded the number available, to courses being given by junior staff, and to a lack of access to more senior faculty; but these remarks were usually in response to specific questions, rather than being an important part of the reason for their appearance before us. Faculty admitted that, as classes had become larger and teaching assistants fewer, they had reduced the number of assignments which had to be corrected personally.
The most newsworthy and controversial way in which universities and, to a lesser degree, colleges have offset declining government support has been to drastically raise the tuition charged students. These increases, and the expectation of future rises, are at the root of the fear that post-secondary education will become too expensive for the children of average Canadian families and will once again be limited to the brilliant, the rich, and those willing to run up huge debts to pay for it.
Expressed in constant 1994 dollars, the shape of the trend in average university tuition appears in the following Figure:
FIGURE 6:Tuition Fees in Constant 1994 $
Source: AUCC Trends 1996, p. 19
Tuition was almost $2,200 at the beginning of the 1970s, but throughout that decade declined until it bottomed out at a bit less than $1,300 in 1981. Average tuition subsequently increased gradually until 1989 when it amounted to a little more than $1,400. Since then tuition has risen dramatically and by 1995 was somewhat higher, in constant dollars, than in 1972.(8) Current comparisons of tuition costs reveal increasing province-to-province differences: Quebec university students studying in Quebec, for example, can pay as little as $1,668 while students taking similar courses in Nova Scotia pay $3,095. Although Quebec and British Columbia froze tuition fees at the beginning of the last academic year, students faced an average increase of about 20% in Ontario and almost 16% in Newfoundland at that time(9). More tuition hikes will almost certainly follow as planned federal and provincial cutbacks are passed down to post-secondary institutions.
We are sympathetic to students’ appeals that college and university tuition and associated fees be frozen or rolled back, but do not feel that we can support them. Even with the increases in tuition, students are still paying only a fraction of the costs of their post-secondary education — one-quarter to one-third at the university level, and generally less at the college level. Government subsidization of tuition costs helps both those who can afford to pay more and those who cannot and, in this way, leaves less money available to assist those who are most in need and deserving of assistance.
While tuition may be the major cost of a post-secondary education for a majority of students, some face additional and much greater financial loads: for those who cannot live at home or with a family member, the supplementary costs of room and board are a more significant barrier to further education than is tuition; transportation is expensive for those commuting long distances; and books and incidental expenses can represent a heavy burden for all students. In our opinion, it is those students who face the whole costs of furthering their education alone for whom accessibility is a serious problem; they can be discouraged from even beginning or overwhelmed by the size of the debt they will have to assume.
The Special Committee recommends:
(3) that the Federal Government and the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada conduct a comprehensive study of the relationships between accessibility and the costs of post-secondary education; this study should include as costs not only tuition, but also books and equipment, laboratory, ancillary and student association fees, travel, living and incidental costs; and it should evaluate the effect that the prospect of high debt has on accessibility.
Approximately 60% of college and university students manage to acquire their post-secondary education without having to take out education loans; even in the Maritime Provinces, a region of the country considered economically depressed, 51% of the class of 1995 completed university with no debt load(10). It is generally assumed that most of these debt-free students finance their studies through a combination of part-time work, family support and private loans, and scholarships and bursaries. The most common form of family assistance is probably the provision of free room and board, supplemented perhaps by assistance in paying tuition and incidental expenses out of family incomes or savings or through one of the Registered Educational Savings Plans offered by financial institutions. We commend these students and their families for demonstrating such self-reliance in undertaking vital investments in their post-secondary education.
A minority of college and university students rely on commercial loans or government-sponsored, means-tested loans to finance their education. A relatively small number of these students depend on commercial "student" loans. Some have to resort to them either because they are not eligible for the means-tested government loans or because they need more support than the government plans permit. The borrowing needs of other students are relatively modest and can be met with a revolving "line of credit" arrangement or small personal loans; in themselves, these do not seem to be a source of trouble — largely because, to be eligible, a borrower must have sufficient employment income to pay the interest and/or have a guarantor to assure payment of the amount outstanding.(11)
The Federal Government merged the old Dominion-Provincial Student Aid Program into the Canada Student Loans Program in 1964 and, by 1994-1995, 2.4 million students had borrowed $10.6 billion through it. The program was substantially changed in 1994. The eligibility criteria now stress that, to be eligible, the student must be enrolled in a program leading to a degree, diploma or certificate and must make "satisfactory progress," which is defined as successful completion of at least 60% of a full course load. The lifetime borrowing limit is 340 weeks, but Ph.D. students are allowed up to 400 weeks and students with disabilities up to 520 weeks. Assistance is limited to the normal length of the program plus one additional period of study. The revised program provides a standardized analysis of the resources and needs of the student, based on national databases which allow for regional variations in costs, earnings, etc. The federal portion of the program provides 60% of a full-time student’s assessed need up to a weekly loan limit of $165 for full-time students; part-time students are allowed a maximum part-time loan balance of $4,000.
Under the loans program, students with disabilities are eligible for Special Opportunities Grants of up to $3,000 each year and are allowed to carry a lighter course load and take longer to complete their programs. Women in certain Ph.D. programs are also entitled to Special Opportunities Grants of up to $3,000 for up to three years(12). This year the Speech from the Throne announced similar Special Opportunities Grants for students with dependents, which should be available by the 1998-1999 academic year, and a Millennium Scholarship Endowment Fund to help low and moderate income students pay for their studies.(13)
The Federal Government has reduced its exposure to high default rates by negotiating a five-year pact with participating financial institutions, which have accepted most of the risk of loan defaults in return for a payment of 5% of the value of the loans that come due for repayment each year. In addition to this "risk premium", the government pays the interest on the loans while students are in school. Following graduation, or the termination of their studies, students negotiate the consolidation of their student loans and a repayment schedule with the financial institution that loaned them the money. Although students can delay the beginning of repayments for six months after the end of their studies they, rather than the Federal Government, pay the interest during this period. Students who are unemployed, forced to accept a low-paying job, or unable to work because of illness or a temporary disability can apply for interest relief. For the first five years of repayment, assistance will be extended for periods of three months at a time, up to a maximum of 30 months. During these periods of relief, the Federal Government pays the interest on the loan.(14)
Even before the budgetary changes announced in February and September, 1997, the Canada Student Loans Program was very expensive, costing the Federal Government $600 million per year to assist 340,000 students. The value of the interest relief provided each student for the duration of studies comes to about $4,000 for a four-year program.(15) According to the 1996-1997 Estimates, the cost to the Federal Government of paying interest on loans while students continued their post-secondary education was $192 million, the Special Opportunities Grants already in place cost $23.4 million, and interest relief added $46.5 million.(16)
In our hearings, we found that there was strong support for a harmonized federal-provincial loan system. The administration of the existing patchwork approach was considered unsatisfactory by a major bank, which also pointed out that it could result in a confusing welter of loan certificates and obligations at the end of four years of study:
The current student loan system is inefficient, inconsistent and unnecessarily complicated … it is possible for students who receive a provincial loan and a federal loan to have to sign as many as 16 certificates and an additional 16 loan agreements during their four years of study.(17)
Student representatives made the same points, arguing that a student should have to take out only one loan, rather than need to struggle with different federal and provincial loans. As it was, some students had defaulted on a loan simply because, having paid off or begun payments on one, they ignored demands for payment of any others.(18)
The Special Committee recommends:
(4) (a) that the Canada Student Loans Program and the various provincial student loan plans move towards a "one student, one loan" delivery service model of student assistance that would promote accessibility to those in need, provide administrative harmonization, encourage greater interprovincial and international mobility, and be cost-shared by the two levels of government; and
(b) that in accessing this plan, students be counseled about their debt-servicing obligations and receive each year a comprehensive statement setting forth the amount of their indebtedness to both levels of government and the monthly payment necessary, at current interest rates, to amortize this debt in three, five and ten years, together with such other information as would clarify the students’ responsibilities concerning their loans.
There is almost universal concern that some students have already had to go too far into debt in order to obtain their post-secondary education. There is also evidence that the fear of accumulating an unmanageable debt in order to obtain a post-secondary education is frightening off some students and preying on the minds of a large percentage of those with loans(19). The average level of debt among those who borrow, which was $8,700 in 1990, is expected to reach $17,000 this year and increase to a level of $25,000 by 1998.(20) These averages, however, do not tell the whole story. Some undergraduate students have already accumulated debt loads of $35,000 to $40,000.
Unfortunately, there is no up-to-date national statistical information about the ability of the average student to manage a large debt load after graduation, nor is there any information about what the maximum debt load should be. Interviews for the next Statistics Canada National Graduates Survey — of 1995 graduates — are taking place this year, but the results will probably not be available until late in 1998. In the earlier surveys (1982, 1986 and 1990) 80% of the respondents said they had no trouble repaying their loans (a majority had actually paid them off in the two years between graduation and the interview) and only 15%-20% said that they had problems repaying. Among those who did have difficulty with repayment, most cited unemployment or underemployment as the reason(21). Although not national in scope, the survey of 1995 graduates carried out on behalf of the three Maritime provinces found that, of the 49% of graduates who had borrowed to finance their studies, the average loan amount was $12,478. Between graduation and the collection of survey data in July-August, 1996, 4% of students had already paid off their loans and 14% of the average debt outstanding per student loan had been repaid. Twenty-two percent of graduates had experienced debt repayment problems within that year; this group had borrowed slightly more than average ($14,683) but had a significantly higher unemployment and underemployment rate. The study concluded that "the key variable related to repayment of government loans is the employment status of the graduate and not the amount borrowed or demographic factors."(22)
Students were virtually unanimous in their assertion that student indebtedness is already beyond the capacity of many to cope. This position was set out in the briefs of national and regional student associations and in the testimony of students across the country. We arranged roundtable meetings with a wide variety of students in Halifax, Ottawa, Regina and Vancouver. Although we tried to obtain student opinion about international education, student mobility and the quality of post-secondary education being received, the discussions began with and quickly returned to the problems students faced in financing their post-secondary education and their fear of an indebtedness level that would cripple their finances indefinitely.
During the Vancouver roundtable, the first student to speak began her comments by referring to the "excessive debt levels" of $30,000-$40,000 that some students accumulated during their studies and sought our support for a system of grants. The second student remarked on bank advertisements for registered retirement savings plans and noted that "it is going to be very many years before I can seriously look at contributing to an RRSP." She then proposed that students be allowed to deduct their student loan repayments from income after graduation(23). In Regina, the first comments were about changes to the Canada Student Loans Program in support of the position of the Canadian Federation of Students, which favours a remission of student debt and the return to a system of grants. Attention then turned to the reasons for student opposition to income contingent loan repayment plans before returning to debt levels with an observation that "moving into the millennium, the year 2000, ... students are going to be facing debt loads of over $30,000."(24) Our East Coast panel opened with observations that the Maritime universities were "amongst the most expensive in the country" and that regional students were at risk of being displaced by students from the wealthier provinces and the United States. The discussion continued with the comment that "unfortunately, due to the financial burden, more and more post-secondary education is a luxury that many cannot afford." (25)
The students’ position received full support from the Canadian Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, which found that, among the students its members counseled and assisted, financial anxiety was the top non-academic source of stress.(26)
Other indications of growing difficulty with handling debt can be found in the rising losses being experienced by the federal and provincial loan programs and anticipated by financial institutions participating in the CSLP. Over the past six or seven years, the Federal Government write-offs due to student bankruptcy have risen from $20 million to $70 million per year and officials believe that outstanding student loans might be involved in about one in nine personal bankruptcies.(27) The officer of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce responsible for its large student loan portfolio testified that delinquency and default rates for existing student loan accounts were already higher than anticipated, and expressed his opinion that the 5% "risk premium" the government paid on the consolidated loans would probably not cover the costs of bad debt collection and defaults.(28)
While we welcome the measures announced in the current budget and the last Speech from the Throne — particularly the increased interest relief offered to students having difficulty repaying their loans and the Special Opportunities Grants for students with dependents as well as the project to establish a new scholarship fund — we believe that the Federal Government should also move quickly to institute a measure of debt relief and to further broaden the program of Special Opportunities Grants.
The Special Committee recommends:
(5) that the Federal Government implement a package of measures to assist borrowers in managing their student debts, including:
(a) allowing borrowers greater flexibility in the repayment of their loans based on their ability to pay;
(b) providing a grant to borrowers who have had chronic difficulty repaying their loans and who have exhausted their maximum period of interest relief, the purpose of this one-time grant being to reduce debt principal enough for the borrower to repay the loan based on his/her income; the grant would be payable directly to the financial institution holding the loan;
(c) enabling borrowers to undertake community service work as a means of repaying part of their loans;
(d) permitting borrowers to deduct from their income tax the interest paid on their student loans, treating human capital investment on the same tax basis as physical capital investment; and
(e) making the existing student tax credits, to the extent that students have insufficient income to entirely utilize them, fully refundable in order that the benefit may be received when students are most in need — i.e., while they are still students — rather than claimed subsequently, when they enter the labour force; and
(6) that the Special Opportunities Grants under the Canada Student Loans Program be expanded to include remission grants, ranging from $1,000 to $2,000 per year, to be awarded to high-need students on the successful completion of their first and second years of study, and that the impact of these remission grants on accessibility be monitored and, after five years, evaluated.
We also support the view, expressed in the testimony of the officials of Human Resources Development Canada and by the coalition of post-secondary education groups which agreed on the "Student Assistance Reform Initiative," that there is no single solution to the problem of helping students to finance their post-secondary education. Rather, families and students should have a range of options. Families who can afford it must be encouraged to set aside money for the retraining of their adult members and for the post-secondary education of their children.
The Special Committee recommends:
(7) that the tax treatment of Registered Educational Savings Plans be restructured to parallel that of Registered Retirement Savings Plans — i.e., that a deduction be permitted when RESP contributions are made, that the contributed amounts grow on a tax-sheltered basis, and that payments from the trust be taxable in the hands of eligible recipients.
On 30 October, 1997, officials of the Human Resources Investment Branch of Human Resources Development Canada briefed us on their activities since their appearance before us in February, 1997, to outline the Canada Student Loans Program and the challenges facing student assistance. The Department had held a series of informal consultations with the provinces, lenders and education groups about directions the reform of student assistance should take and on potential solutions to the issue of student debt. In an effort to build a consensus around these issues the Department sponsored a national Stakeholders Working Session on November 17-18.
We certainly welcome and support the attention this Department is giving to the reform of student assistance and to aiding recipients of student loans who are having difficulty making their payments. During our meetings with departmental officials, however, very little was said about what parallel steps might be taken to encourage self-sufficiency in general and the continued self-sufficiency of the majority of students who do not borrow to finance their studies in particular. The Department should give serious consideration to providing incentives to expand government and corporate involvement in the two types of programs outlined below.
Work-study programs, which provide matching wage subsidies for students engaged in academically- or career-oriented work on campus, have proved very successful in the United States and in some Canadian provinces. Students benefit financially by receiving non-repayable assistance and professionally by acquiring work skills and experience. Colleges and universities participating in the programs benefit from work paid for in part by wage subsidies. By helping students with high financial needs to reduce the amount of their borrowing, governments are benefitting both students and post-secondary institutions as well as reducing the rate of loan defaults and personal bankruptcy.
Co-op programs bring together students, universities and employers — whether private, non-profit or government — in a productive partnership. In well designed programs, students alternate periods of academic study and relevant work, thus enabling them to earn an income and gain valuable on-the-job experience. Those enrolled in these programs can attain a remarkable level of self-confidence and self-esteem:
It is a change that is wonderful to see. They enjoy higher employment levels and they have greater job satisfaction. In a particular study we conducted, we asked them to rank job satisfaction between one and ten. The non-co-op graduates ranked their first job at a level of three in satisfaction, and the co-ops at a level of seven.(29)
Post-secondary institutions benefit because the programs submit their course curricula to ongoing and practical criticism, ensuring that the material taught remains up-to-date and relevant. Employers benefit from training or retraining employees/students according to the needs of their enterprises and from good public relations. Co-op programs are a very successful part of student assistance in many colleges and universities.
Across Canada, about 650 post-secondary institutions offer co-op programs to more than 50,000 students(30). We had the opportunity to speak with the manager of the very successful Asia Pacific Management Cooperative Program run by Capilano College in British Columbia. Although the Federal Government underwrites about 12% of the costs of this program, fully 71% comes from the private sector, which also contributes to an endowment fund. Such a program is immensely valuable to its graduates, who have little difficulty finding jobs abroad and later in Canada at premium salaries, and it is also of direct benefit to Canada, generating significant economic activity. Corporations in all economic sectors, and particularly in sectors such as high technology, should be encouraged to support cooperative programs to upgrade the skills of their workforce and to train new workers.(31)
The Special Committee recommends:
(8) that the Federal Government establish a national work-study program and support the expansion of cooperative education programs by participating in them and by implementing tax incentives to encourage greater participation by private enterprises.
We received briefs and heard testimony from many organizations representing francophone minority post-secondary education in Canada. Their institutions serve not only the relatively concentrated francophone populations of New Brunswick and Ontario but also the smaller and more scattered populations of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, of Manitoba and Alberta. The largest of them are the University of Ottawa with about 23,000 students and the University of Moncton and Laurentian University with about 6,300 students each. A smaller tier consists of La Cité Collégiale with a student body of just under 5,000 and Glendon University College and Boreal College with about 2,000 students each. However, colleges and universities with student bodies of only a few hundred are also an essential element; these include Saint Anne University in Nova Scotia, Saint Paul University in Ontario, the University College of Saint-Boniface in Manitoba and the Faculté Saint-Jean at the University of Alberta.(32)
Francophone colleges and universities face special problems and have distinct needs. The large universities are bilingual and must offer courses in both official languages, maintain two libraries, acquire bilingual software or separate English and French software, employ bilingual staff, etc., all of which increase their costs. One of the biggest challenges in providing equality of service to the minority francophone post-secondary community is funding program development; there is limited French-language material available, and what does exist is very expensive due to its relatively small North American market.
The small French-language institutions face an even more daunting series of challenges. The Collège de l’Acadie, for example, was born less than ten years ago and now has an enrolment of 200. Since 1992 it has offered distance education in its seven learning centres, six of which are located in the different Acadian and francophone areas of Nova Scotia while the seventh is in Wellington, Prince Edward Island. The great distances separating its various learning centres mean that face-to-face meetings and discussions are rarely possible among faculty; instead, interaction is by telephone, fax, electronic-mail and teleconferencing. The technological systems used at the Collège are new and must be kept "state of the art," which is a very expensive proposition as is rental of the telephone services necessary to support these networks. Faculty and support staff need to be trained in each new upgrade and it can be very difficult and time-consuming to recruit employees with both the language and the professional skills required.(33)
Twelve francophone universities in seven different provinces outside the province of Quebec have formed Le Regroupement des universités de la francophonie hors Quebec, which was created to allow them to interact and create partnerships. It was also founded to remind the Federal Government of its commitments to support the development and expansion of the official language minority group communities. Widely scattered across the country and isolated from each other, the members of the Regroupement offer francophones the opportunity of getting their post-secondary education in French. They also allow non-francophones to continue their studies in a local French-language milieu and give residents of Quebec the opportunity to study in French in English-speaking provinces. In this way interprovincial mobility is encouraged.(34)
French-language institutions of the francophone minorities of Canada are very concerned that their need to "catch up" with the English-language post-secondary network across the country will be ignored. Widespread interest in French-language post-secondary education can only develop on the basis of available French-language high schools. As a result, although many post-secondary institutions have historical roots, they have emerged as modern colleges and universities within the last twenty to twenty-five years. Further, the increase in participation rate in post-secondary education among francophone minorities in Canada has also lagged behind that of the general Canadian population, perhaps because much of the former’s population is still rural.
The "growth spurt" of francophone post-secondary institutions is thus occurring during a period of cutbacks in federal and provincial spending, rather than at a time of rapidly increasing budgets. They are also much more dependent on government financing than are older colleges and universities because they have not had time to build up and benefit from supportive alumni groups or to accumulate the endowments that can finance a few vital percentage points of their operating budgets. The support share they receive from the provincial governments and the Federal Government almost universally lags behind the relative size of the local francophone population, and they lack the funds to develop as many new courses as are needed.
Modern technology offers francophone colleges and universities the opportunity of drawing closer together and forming themselves into a country-wide system that can offer a full range of post-secondary programs in the French language. However, they lack the financial resources to build this kind of national information highway that would allow them to exchange courses and programs, to extend French-language university services to areas of the country not already served and to develop new programs.
The francophone minorities’ universities and colleges in Canada are very concerned that, because they are relatively small and recently established, their needs will not be met. We believe, however, that these institutions should be treated as the capstone of the French-language school system outside Quebec. Although they serve a population roughly the size of the anglophone population of Quebec, they do not command the same resources from either the public or the private sector; nor do they enjoy the same reputation. But as with the anglophone institutions of Quebec, the existence, development and expansion of these francophone colleges and universities add an essential dimension to Canada’s post-secondary "system" and an important symbol of national unity.
The Special Committee recommends:
(9) that the Federal Government ensure that the funding assistance offered to minority language post-secondary institutions take into account the special needs of francophone minority institutions for additional funding to allow them to catch up to the range of programs offered in other colleges and universities; and
(10) that the Federal Government play a leading role in the establishment and financing of a French-language information highway linking together the francophone minority post-secondary institutions and in supporting their development of courses and programs suitable for distance education.
The first witnesses to appear before us were officials of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, to testify about federal programs for helping Aboriginal students to access post-secondary education. Further testimony on this subject was taken when we held hearings in Regina and Vancouver. Back in Ottawa, we also heard from the Assembly of First Nations.
The government officials testified that First Nations and Indian authorities administer about 90% of the budget of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada: they set their own guidelines and make their own decisions on student support; and they decide who receives funding, at what level, and for what period of time while the students pursue their studies. The Department supports a special program to help Indian and Inuit students prepare for college or university by upgrading their academic credentials. This program assists with the costs of tuition, books, travel and living expenses. An Indian Studies Support Program helps post-secondary institutions develop Indian language courses, cultural offerings and outreach programs; it funds Indian education organizations, Indian and other post-secondary institutions —the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College is a major beneficiary of this program.
Federal expenditures on Aboriginal post-secondary education and Aboriginal student enrolment have grown rapidly since 1985-1986 when expenditures were $73 million and enrolment was 11,170. By 1996-1997, expenditures had risen to $269 million and enrolment to more than 26,000.(35)
The Federal Government provides financial support under the Indian Studies Support Program to a wide range of First Nations post-secondary institutions across Canada. These include the Chemainus Native College and the Nicola Valley Institute of Technology in British Columbia, the Blue Gills First Nations College and Red Crow College in Alberta, the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College and the Saskatchewan Indian Institute of Technology, and the First Nations Technical Institute and the Waubetek Training Institute in Ontario. In Manitoba, a block sum is allocated to First Nations organizations to allow them to purchase the programs and courses they choose from a range of institutions, including Brandon University and the University of Manitoba. The Program also funds First Nations studies in a large number of mainstream colleges and universities, including the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi and the CEGEP de Sept-Isles in Quebec, several Ontario universities and colleges, and the Universities of Regina and Saskatchewan.(36)
The Saskatchewan Indian Federated College stands out among First Nations post-secondary institutions because of its tradition of academic excellence and the number of its Aboriginal academic personnel. It was established as a college federated with the University of Regina in 1976 and operates under the authority of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations. It meets the academic standards of mainstream post-secondary institutions while providing certificate, diploma, degree and graduate programs with First Nations content, perspective and pedagogy. Its courses include programs in Indian Studies, Languages, Fine Arts, Literature and Communications/Journalism as well as professional training in education, social work, health sciences, and business and public administration, which includes an MBA program. Its enrolment has increased rapidly and now stands at some 1,600 students, about one-third of whom attend classes on the Regina campus, one-third on the Saskatoon campus and one-third in nearly 19 full-time community-based programs across Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta. Because of its size and reputation, the College is a major supplier of educational services to non-First Nations students on its campuses and through distance learning.
We believe that over the past twenty years, the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College has evolved into a post-secondary institution of significance, not only to the First Nations which founded and continue to nurture it, but also to Canada as a whole. It has become an important symbol of what the First Nations can achieve on their own initiative and an indicator of what they can offer to status Indians, other Aboriginal peoples and the rest of the community in terms of post-secondary education.
Other First Nations institutions run programs of national significance as well. The En’owkin Centre of Penticton, British Columbia, for example, has developed the only indigenous writing school in the world, the En’owkin International School of Writing. It focuses on the development of writers from First Nations communities and attracts students from across Canada. The Centre has also developed the courses for a two-year fine arts program which it offers in conjunction with the University of Victoria as the first two years toward an undergraduate degree.(37)
While there are many excellent examples of the ability of First Nations educational institutions to meet mainstream academic standards of post-secondary education, we also heard testimony attacking the imposition of these standards on First Nations students and institutions. According to the latter view, the mainstream standards were used to deny most grassroots First Nations post-secondary institutions funding and enrollment, because students were required to study at "accredited institutions" to receive federal support and only those institutions were eligible for government funds. This, they say, defeats the major objective, which should be to educate young Aboriginal people according to radically different standards based upon their traditions and cultures. In the words of one witness, it is essential to get young Aboriginals educated: "not just trained, not indoctrinated, but educated and with a strong sense of their own value as First Nations people."(38)
The refusal to accredit and fund a range of First Nations institutions has meant that Aboriginal post-secondary education has become a growth industry for mainstream colleges and universities and for the communities in which they are located. All too frequently, the federal money to support post-secondary education comes into the hands of the band and immediately leaves the local community with the students. The training allowance grants, the funds for post-secondary student support, the family allowance money, the child tax credit money, etc. do not generate development or jobs for natives or native communities.(39)
The Subcommittee was told that First Nations educational institutions like Red Crow Community College of the Kamai Nation in Alberta have a proven ability to motivate students who have dropped out of school. The College places these youth with adult students to complete their education in a program of study that includes Blackfoot language and Blackfoot studies as core subjects. Initially, the young people resisted these courses; but once they had completed them, there was a fundamental difference in their attitudes towards themselves and their learning.
Since Aboriginal languages, Aboriginal studies, Aboriginal ways and the Aboriginal experience have to be at the centre of Aboriginal post-secondary education, accreditation according to mainstream criteria is deemed irrelevant. Consequently, in Alberta, British Columbia and Manitoba, the First Nations are circulating in draft form the terms of reference, operational procedures and organizational principles for a body to accredit Aboriginal educational programs and institutions(40). As a witness concluded: "The validation of our culture by outside sources is something that we must not put up with any longer .… Until we have control and direction of our education, we will not have an educational system that will promote our values. It will always be somebody else’s."(41)
The theme that the Aboriginal communities have to be in a position to exercise much more control over the post-secondary education of their people also underlay testimony of the Assembly of First Nations, which presented us with a broad critique of the assumptions, funding and regulation of federal policy. It was argued that since the Federal Government considered post-secondary education to be a non-essential and discretionary program, not a treaty right, it had limited budgetary increases to 3% per annum and had denied First Nations the budget necessary to establish new institutions and full programs. Rigid departmental criteria for student assistance eligibility have limited the amount First Nations Councils can spend on individual students, which is inconsistent with the principles of First Nations jurisdiction over education. The provinces also denied First Nations institutions their share of federal transfer payments for post-secondary education, and the First Nations are still excluded from exercising any real influence over the mainstream institutions that the majority of their students attend. Some form of dialogue is necessary with the Boards of these institutions to ensure that they offer courses dealing with First Nations cultural issues and Aboriginal languages.(42)
The Special Committee recommends:
(11) that the Federal Government commit itself to supporting the establishment of a network of First Nations community-based post-secondary institutions across the country, and that the additional provision for start-up costs and core funding of these institutions be a separate budgetary item;
(12) that the Federal Government offer institutions such as the First Nations Technical Institute, Red Crow College, the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College, etc. supplementary funding for the additional costs of the technology necessary to unite their scattered locations; and
(13) that the Federal Government increase its commitment to the building fund of the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College and urge the Government of Saskatchewan to announce its own commitment, although the Federal Government’s commitment to the fund should not be conditional on money from the province.
We learned that opportunities for the disabled in post-secondary education have definitely improved over the past several years but still remain very limited when compared to those for the rest of Canada’s population. In 1995, a survey of the 47 universities rated by MacLean’s magazine found that of the 820,000 full- and part-time students registered, approximately 6,900, or under 1%, were categorized as "disabled." Further, the more serious one’s disability, the less likely it was that an individual was attending university: blind and visually impaired students constituted only .08% of all students enrolled, the deaf and hearing impaired .06%, and students with moderate to severe mobility impairments .17%. This compares to the 14%-20% rate of disability reported by Statistics Canada among the population at large.(43)
Disabled students face a range of obstacles in their efforts to obtain a post-secondary education. As with other disadvantaged groups, the disabled are disproportionately represented among those with low education and are thus rendered doubly disadvantaged. Among disabled women in the 25-29 age cohort, for example, 12.2% of a sample group reported grade eight or less education, whereas only 2.5% of women without a disability reported the same level. Without a solid secondary education, succeeding at college or university becomes an insurmountable challenge for them.(44)
At the post-secondary level, disabled students may find that they are unable to take the courses they want because many educational institutions were built long ago and were not designed to be easily accessible. Important academic faculties and student services are frequently located in heritage buildings that are almost impossible to access and which would be prohibitively expensive to modify. We were given numerous examples of the frustrations disabled students face on historic campuses whose buildings usually have impressive entrance staircases, may be remote from their curb-side "civic" addresses and rise from landscaping that, while aesthetically pleasing, is daunting for all but the athletic, particularly in winter. We discovered this problem ourselves: one of our Halifax meeting places was difficult to find because it was in a building at the end of a path with occasional steps; the other was almost impossible for anyone but the physically fit to access.(45)
The disabled face a series of additional costs for their post-secondary education. Students try to live in the cheapest housing available, which usually means the oldest and least accessible structures near campus. To find accessible housing, disabled persons may have to pay higher rents for newer buildings some distance from campus. While most larger communities have some form of special needs transportation, this is rarely planned for the convenience of students who come and go between residence and campus at different times depending on the courses they are taking and who needs transportation to and from a part-time job(46). Moreover, the disabled may require special services, such as a sign-language interpreter or special equipment. Modern technology and computer software can allow those who are legally blind to read regular texts and can produce a typescript text from dictation and read it back in an electronic voice; but the technology is expensive, some of it can cost thousands of dollars, and the disabled tend to have low incomes.
Almost one in five, or 424,780 of the 2,297,135 disabled Canadians between 15 and 64 years old, have annual incomes of under $2,000; more than half (1,238,435) earn less than $15,000 per year.(47) The Special Opportunities Grant for the disabled that is part of the Canada Student Loans Program — with a maximum of $3,000 — may be adequate to offset the additional living and transportation costs of a disabled post-secondary student, but it is insufficient to provide the special services, equipment or technology which may be required either by the student or by the institution.
The Special Committee recommends:
(14) that making colleges and universities more accessible to the disabled be part of the infrastructure program referred to in Recommendation (2); and
(15) that the Federal Government consult with the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada about providing funding, as part of the program of Special Opportunities Grants, for any special services, equipment and technology that may be necessary to enable a disabled student to attend a post-secondary institution; if the special equipment and/or technology so acquired is or would be very important to employment, the student should be able to lease it for a reasonable percentage of his/her employment income; otherwise, it should be kept by the post-secondary institution until required by another disabled student.
