Sub 200108 Finance

Canadian Federation of Students14

123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890

Canadian Federation of Students

submission to the

House of CommonsStanding Committee on Finance

August, 2001

2001 Submission to the Standing Committee on Finance 1

INTRODUCTION

The unprecedented growth of theCanadian economy over the past sixyears has created unique challenges andopportunities. On June 1, 2000 thegross domestic product reached thebenchmark of $1 trillion and the pastthree federal budgets have producedsurpluses of over $5 billion. Usingconservative economic indicators, theCanadian Association of UniversityTeachers estimates the surplus willgrow to at least $34.6 billion over thenext five years. Despite theseachievements the gap between the richand poor in Canada continues to widen.According to the Canadian Fact Bookon Poverty there are 1.3 million morepoor households in Canada than therewere 20 years ago. Between 1981 and1997, the rate of poverty among youngfamilies more than doubled from 21.7per cent to 46.1 per cent.

During this same period of economicexpansion and increased poverty, thecost of post-secondary education hasdramatically increased and access toeducation for low and middle incomeCanadians is declining. An importantindicator about the mismatch betweenmacro-economic prosperity and thedeclining opportunities for low andmiddle income Canadians can be foundin recent trends in post-secondaryeducation policy. Regrettably, Canada’s

system of post-secondary education isworking to exacerbate the gap betweenthose who prosper in the new economyand those who languish in low-paying,unfulfilling work. In the past threebudgets the federal government hasundertaken a variety of new policyinitiatives under the banner of the “neweconomy” and the challenge ofproviding opportunities for all.However, as we shall outline, thesemeasures have, for the most part, beencosmetic.

Besides calling for more core funding,this brief will make the case that themoney the federal government isinvesting in post-secondary educationand research could be allocated moreeffectively. In addition, though thefederal government has restored aportion of the funding cut to the CanadaHealth and Social Transfer (CHST) in1994, almost none of this new fundingis being used for public colleges anduniversities. The federal governmenthas yet to implement any frameworkwith the provinces that works towardnational standards of quality andmobility. Before such a framework canbe built the federal government mustfind a means of making the provincesmore accountable for the fundstransferred under the CHST designed tofund post-secondary education.

In the light of the trends outlined aboveit is regrettable that the Standing

Canadian Federation of Students’Submission to the

House of CommonsStanding Committee on Finance

August, 2001


Committee on Finance hasrecommended that almost all of theaccrued surplus for the next three yearsbe allocated for tax cuts. Tax cuts willdo nothing to address the growingincome disparity in Canada and, moreimportantly, they limit thegovernment’s ability to properly fundprograms like healthcare and post-secondary education that soften socio-economic divisions. In this brief wewill outline how these recent policymeasures are actually contributing towhat Judith Maxwell called the ‘socialdeficit’ and why the basic tenor offederal government policy on post-secondary education is moving usfurther away from the democratic goalof a high quality system of universaleducation accessible to all.

This brief will be divided into threesections: Access to Post-SecondaryEducation; Research; and Skills andTraining. In each section we assesscurrent policy as well as offer proactivesolutions to the problems endemic inour system of post-secondaryeducation. The policy themes andrecommendations that govern this briefwill explore both the economic andsocial peril Canada invites by ignoringthe crisis in post-secondary education.

ACCESS: OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL?

“Every Canadian who wants to learnshould have the opportunity to do so.Students from lower income familiesare under-represented in our institutionsof higher learning. Too many aredeterred from pursuing highereducation because of a fear of a largedebt.”

Paul Martin, 1998

The withdrawal of federal funding overthe past decade has led to a steady

decline in access to post-secondaryeducation among low and middleincome Canadians. Throughout the1990’s, the federal government pointedto high participation rates to argue thatfunding cuts have had no effect onaccess to post-secondary education.However, recent data suggests thatthere is a direct link between fundingand accessibility. Between 1990 and2000, tuition fees increased by anational average of 126%. During thissame period, university operatingrevenues from governments fell by25%.1 Student debt also rose from anaverage of $8,000 in 1990 to $25,000 in1998.

The effect of this paradigm shift in howeducation is funded has been felt mostacutely by low and middle incomeCanadians. Canadians who are in thebottom 20% in terms of after-taxincome now devote 23% of their after-tax income to tuition fees andeducational expenses.2 That figurerepresents a 64% increase from 1991.During this period, the after-tax incomeof this demographic decreased by 3% inreal dollars.3

The downloading of educational costsfrom the collective pool of publicresources to the individual has had apredictable effect on access. Over thepast 18 months reliable data hasemerged that tracks the effect of thepublic policy terms enumerated above.At the University of Western Ontario astudy was undertaken to quantify theeffects of tuition fee increases. Thestudy documented the householdincome of two groups of students. Thefirst were students entering Western’smedical school in the first year inwhich tuition fees had been fully


deregulated, resulting in substantial feeincreases. The second group werefourth year medical students who hadentered the program three years earlierduring a period when the fees wereregulated and considerably lower. Thestudy found that after deregulation, theparticipation rates of students fromfamilies with a household income ofless than $40,000 dropped by more than50% (from 17.3% to just 7.7%).Participation rates of students fromvery high-income families tripled, from8.6% to 24.4%. A similar study at theUniversity of Guelph found that thenumber of students entering theUniversity of Guelph from homes withfamily incomes of $40,000 or less was40% in 1987. That number had droppedto 16% by 1998.

The withdrawal of public funding andincreased cost of post secondaryeducation has had a particularlydetrimental effect on aboriginalcommunities in Canada.Unemployment rates and other socialdeterminants in aboriginal communitiesremain at levels near that of developingnations. A recent review of postsecondary education by the Assemblyof First Nations confirms that fundingand opportunity are being denied toaboriginal Canadians who are leastlikely to afford the increased cost oftuition.4 The study focused on thecapping of band funding for post-secondary education and the effect thatthis cap has had on access to educationfor First Nations peoples. In addition,the report points to federal funding cutsas the primary reason why Canada’sFirst Nations have been unable toexpand the number of institutionsdevoted exclusively to the needs ofaboriginal learners.

These findings provide conclusiveevidence that tuition fees operate as adirect barrier to families at the low endof the socio-economic scale. In short,federal and provincial under-funding ofeducation is creating yet another dividein Canadian society between those whohave access to the skills, training, andexperience of post-secondary educationand those Canadians who are deniedaccess for purely financial reasons. Thismounting evidence supports theprescient claim of the MaritimeProvinces Higher EducationCommission in its study of accessibilityin 1997:

The research clearly demonstrates thatthe cost of post-secondary educationand increasing debt levels aresignificant factors in the decisionstudents make about whether or not tocontinue their studies beyond highschool. Even more significant is thefinding that students from lowerincome households are much morelikely to be affected by financial issueswhen deciding to pursue or not pursuetheir education beyond high school (ii,1997).

In the face of this mounting crisis thefederal government has taken severalmodest steps to address the problem ofaccessibility. Before offeringrecommendations we will evaluate theeffect these measures, in particular, theRegistered Education Savings Program(RESP) and the MillenniumScholarship Foundation (MSF), arehaving.

In the face of mounting tuition fees andother individualised costs of education,the federal government recentlyextended the Registered EducationSavings Program to include a nationalsystem of grants (Canada Education


Savings Grant-CESG) based on theability to save. In addition to theforgone tax revenue of the originalprogram, the federal government setaside a grant of 20% on the first $2000deposited into an RESP. The granttotals $400 per year and continues untilthe year in which the child for whomthe account is opened turns 17.

The addition of the grants program,along with a cessation of certainrestrictions, increased participation inthe program dramatically andrepresents a significant federalgovernment expenditure on post-secondary education. Between 1998and May 2001 the government ofCanada spent $959,487,905 on directgrants. This figure does not take intoaccount the cost of administering theprogram or the forgone tax revenue.Despite this public expenditure theparticipation rates of low and middleincome Canadians are rapidlydeclining. Recent data from StatisticsCanada demonstrates why the federalgovernment is seeing such a poor fiscaland social return on this investment.

In an April 2001 study, entitled Surveyof Approaches to EducationalPlanning, researchers tracked attitudestoward saving for a child’s post-secondary education as well as theactual savings families were able toaccumulate. The study controled forfamily income and parental educationalattainment. In homes where the familyincome was less than $30,000, 80% ofparents said they hoped to save fundsfor a child’s education. However, only18.7% of those parents were actuallyable to save. In homes with familyincome of over $80,000 researchersfound that 95% of parents hoped to

save for a child’s education and that62.6% actually were saving.

These numbers confirm the case putforward by the Canadian Federation ofStudents in our submission to theStanding Committee on Finance lastyear. Through the available data weargued that the RESP program was ineffect a national system of grants forthe wealthy. The RESP is ostensibly asocial program funded by all Canadiansdesigned to reward those with themeans to save. The aforementionedfindings by Statistics Canada confirmsthis analysis and provides hard data tosupport the contention that the RESPand CESG programs are a regressiveuse of public funds that are doingvirtually nothing to assist thoseCanadians most in need of the skillsand training offered by post-secondaryeducation. RESPs merely expand thealready existing gap in Canada betweenthe desire for post-secondary educationand the ability to afford it. It is indeedperverse public policy to spend publicfunds on those who least needassistance while doing little or nothingto help those for whom post-secondaryeducation remains only a dream.

The other policy measure taking uppublic resources is the MillenniumScholarship Foundation (MSF).Enshrined in the 1998 federal budget,

Household

Income

% of children whose

parents hope they will

attend post secondary

institutions

% of children

whose parents

are saving for

their PSE

Source: Statistics Canada, The Daily, April 10, 2001

Figure 1. - Post Secondary Aspirations and Savings

1 8 . 7

3 7 . 4

4 5 . 6

5 2 . 6

6 2 . 6

7 9 . 8

8 5 . 8

9 0 . 6

9 3 . 4

9 5 . 0

<$30 ,000

$30,000-$49,000

$50,000-$59,000

$60,000-$79,000

$80 ,000+


the MSF has had little or no impact onstudent debt in Canada. Since FinanceMinister Paul Martin rose in the Houseof Commons and promised Canadiansthat the MSF would reduce a students’debt by $12,000 over a four-yearprogram, the MSF has been mired inpublic relations gaffes and disputeswith provincial governments. Thecomplex public/private structure of theFoundation forced it to enter intonegations with provincial governmentsto disburse approximately $250 millionper year. When these negotiations werecompleted it became apparent thatsome provinces (Nova Scotia andOntario in particular) were simply notgoing to use funds transferred from theMSF to relieve student debt. Thecreation of the MSF as a stand-alonebody was designed to give the federalgovernment a higher profile in thefunding of post-secondary education.Consequently, the MSF has become apublic relations vehicle that is notaddressing the root problem of studentdebt. This, despite an endowment of$2.5 billion over ten years.

The Canadian Federation of Students isproposing that the funds currently beingexpended in the RESP and CESGprograms, along with the MillenniumScholarship Foundation endowment, berolled into a national system of needsbased grants. If the program were to beadministered through the current needs-assessment mechanism of the CanadaStudent Loan Program (CSLP) it wouldrequire no start-up funding and noincrease to administrative costs. Inaddition, such a program of needs-based grants would be revenue neutralas we are proposing that it be fundedwith resources re-directed from theRESP and MSF budgets. This re-

direction of funds would allow thefederal government to provide an up-front grant to those most in need offinancial assistance without adjustingany current budgetary projections.

Finally, years of under-funding by thefederal government and provincialgovernments has led to increasedreliance on the Canada Student LoanProgram. As previously noted, studentdebt has skyrocketed to an average of$25,000 as students bear the brunt offunding shortages. In response to thisincreased pressure on the CSLP, thefederal government has simplyattempted to make the program morerestrictive by instituting regressivepolicy measures under the guise ofaccountability.

In the case of the bankruptcylegislation, the federal government isattempting to address the crisis ofstudent debt by criminalising students.This unconscionable legislation stripsstudents of the very last financialprotection offered under the law. Thelaw introduces a fundamental inequityin the way Canadians are treated underthe law. It is this provision that hascompelled the Canadian Federation ofStudents to launch a Charter challengebefore the Superior Court of Ontario torepeal this unjust and unconstitutionallaw. The provisions of the Bankruptcyand Insolvency Act are designed tooffer a last hope to those unable to copewith debt. Under the Act, an individualmust appear before a judge and presentevidence under oath that their financialdisposition makes it impossible forthem to meet their obligations.

In 1997, the federal governmentundertook a review of the Act with theaim of enacting a two-year prohibition


RESEARCH: PUBLIC RESEARCHFOR PUBLIC DOLLARS?

“At a certain point…we don’t haveuniversities anymore, but outlyingbranches of industry. Then all thethings that society turns to the univer-sity for––breadth of knowledge, fartime horizons, and independent voice––are lost.”

John Polanyi, Nobel Prize winning chemist

at the University of Toronto

In the 2001 Speech from the Throne,the federal government committed todoubling spending on research anddevelopment over the next ten years.The announcement continues the trendof increased public investment inresearch. However, recent trends infederal government research policygives rise to several concerns aboutwho will benefit from this boom inspending.

Since freezing funding for Canada’sthree granting councils in the early andmid 1990’s the federal government has

on declaring bankruptcy. During theconsultation period the CanadianFederation of Students and other groupsmade a compelling case against such aprejudicial change. Despite theconsensus view that such changeswould only lead to misery for thosemost desperate, the federal governmentenacted legislation setting out the two-year prohibition. Less than ten monthslater, without consultation or supportingreasons, the 1998 ‘education’ budgetlegislation extended the ban to tenyears. As it now seems clear that theMinistry of Finance initiated thesechanges, we are calling on the StandingCommittee on Finance to recommendthat this discriminatory law be repealed.

The cumulative effects of diminishedfunding to post-secondary coupled withpolicy initiatives like credit checks forstudent loans and changes to the Bank-ruptcy and Insolvency Act have createda crisis in student debt and additionalaccessibility problems for low andmiddle income Canadians. New policythat individualises the cost of highereducation have only exacerbated theexisting inequities. Successful ways toaddress these problems will have to benational in scope, and be sensitive tostudents who are most in need.

Recommendation #1:The federal government shouldterminate the RESP program andinstitute the Canada StudentGrants Program.

Recommendation #2:The federal government shouldterminate the MillenniumScholarship Foundation andtransfer the funds to the CanadaStudent Grants Program.

Recommendation #3:The federal government shouldreverse discriminatory changes tothe Bankruptcy and InsolvencyAct.

Recommendation #4:The federal government shouldabandon the practice of doingcredit checks on Canada StudentLoan applicants.

Recommendation #5:The federal government shouldenact a Post-Secondary EducationAct that enforces nationalstandards of mobility, quality andaccessibility.


taken modest steps to re-invest inpublic research. In addition to replacingthe Medical Research Council with theCanadian Institutes of Health Research,the federal government has brought theSocial Sciences and HumanitiesResearch Council and the NaturalSciences and Engineering ResearchCouncil back to 1995 levels.

While modestly investmenting inpublic research, the federal governmentincreased funding for the CanadaFoundation for Innovation (CFI) by$900 million. Introduced in the 1997budget, the CFI funds research projectsthat are able to secure 20% - 60% oftheir funding from private industry.Under the current scheme, the CFI willonly fund projects that are public/private partnerships.

The rapid growth of the CFI has hadfour detrimental effects on research inCanada:i) The CFI subsidises private, for-

profit research in Canada bytransferring hundreds of millions ofresearch dollars to private industry.There is very little publicaccountability for the results ofpublicly funded research when keptsecret for ‘proprietary’ reasons.

ii) The institutionalisation of public/private research through the CFI isstifling public research in Canada,

iii) Public/private partnerships create atwo tier system of education inCanada with large researchuniversities triumphing oversmaller, generally regionally based,institutions.

iv) Humanities funding is fallingfarther and farther behind otheracademic disciplines likeengineering and computer science.

Two recent examples highlight thedangers of public/private partnerships.Both examples are drawn from theUniversity of Toronto. The story of theUniversity of Toronto is an instructiveexample in assessing the cost of public/private partnerships. The University ofToronto has been able to raise astaggering amount of money over thepast ten years in private and corporatedonations. Most of this fundraisingactivity has been spurred by thewithdrawal of provincial and federalfunding and the contemporaneousintroduction of public/privatepartnerships. However, the Universityof Toronto’s success at fundraising hasbeen accompanied by a diminishmentof academic and research freedom.Consider the case of Dr. NancyOlivieri, a researcher at the Universityof Toronto and the Hospital for SickChildren. Olivieri was contracted byApotex, Canada’s largest drugmanufacturer and one of the Universityof Toronto’s most important donors, totest a new drug to treat thalassemia.During the course of her researchOlivieri discovered several disturbingside effects of the drug andrecommended that the trials bediscontinued, or at least suspended,until the risk to her patients could beassessed. When Olivieri sought topublish her results and alert herpatients, she was threatened with legalaction and a smear campaign wasorganised against her.

What is most disturbing and surprisingabout Dr. Olivieri’s case is not thebehaviour of the drug company but thebehaviour of the university. Instead ofsupporting Olivieri in this importantcase of public safety versus corporateprofit, the university attempted to fire


Olivieri and did everything it could tomollify Apotex for fear of losingfunding from Apotex. University ofToronto President Robert Pritchardwent so far as to write a letter to thefederal government in support ofApotex’s call for legislative changes togeneric drug patent laws. Throughoutthe entire controversy, the University ofToronto was involved in sensitivenegotiations to establish a $20 millionpartnership with Apotex under theauspices of the CFI.

The second, and more recent exampleis the case of Dr. David Healy. Healy isan internationally renowned psychiatricresearcher. He was offered a positionthat he accepted with the University ofToronto. Shortly after his appointment,Healy presented at a conference wherehe described a disturbing lack ofresearch to investigate the potentialrelationship between Prozac and suiciderates. He made his remarks in thecontext of a paper that raised seriousconcerns about the ability of largepharmaceutical companies to drive thenational research agenda.TheUniversity of Toronto immediatelywithdrew its offer of employment toHealy. Eli Lilly, the company thatmanufactures Prozac, is a large donorto the University of Toronto.

The examples of Dr. Healy and Dr.Olivieri illustrate what is lost when thefunding of research is privatised and thepublic interest becomes secondary tocorporate research and public relations.Though the federal government hasinvested more money into research,Canadian citizens are seeing a poorreturn on this investment becausealmost all of the new funding issubsidising private industry at theexpense of research and development

that benefits all of Canadian society.

The CFI and other matching fundprograms have opened a significant gapbetween large, well-establisheduniversities and smaller colleges anduniversities. Those institutions thathave a large pool of ‘seed capital’ topursue and sustain large corporatedonations are reaping a windfall ofpublic funding. Those universities thatmay not immediately have the sameappeal to corporate Canada or do nothave the infrastructure to undertakemulti-million dollar campaigns formatching funds have no access to thisfunding. The Canadian Association ofUniversity Business Officers estimatesthat Canadian universities have a deficitof $3.6 billion in deferred maintenancecosts. Institutions most able to leveragepublic funds with private stringsattached are better able to meet theseimmediate needs. Those institutionsthat cannot meet these needs are unableto sustain an innovative researchenvironment. Though some in the post-secondary education sector have calledfor a complex funding formula tocompensate for the indirect cost ofresearch, the only way to insure that alluniversities and colleges have equalaccess to public funds is to restore corefunding to public universities andcolleges.

In the case of the humanities, almost allof the federal government’s matchingfund programs explicitly exclude thehumanities. In addition, the value ofhumanities programs is not consideredimmediately useful by corporations thatseek partnerships with universities andcolleges. The humanities, unlikescience-related disciplines, arechronically under-funded and thecurrent move toward public/private


partnerships ensures that this under-funding will continue.

Though the development of the CFIand other matching fund programsignores and, in some cases, underminesthe humanities, the data has never beenmore thorough to demonstrate theeconomic and social benefit of thehumanities. Dr. Robert Allen, aUniversity of British Columbiaeconomist, demonstrated that thedemand for humanities graduates hasactually outstripped that of science andengineering graduates. In addition,Allen noted the proclivity high-techfirms exhibit for employees with theability to think critically as opposed tothose with primarily technical skills.The diversity and dynamism of the neweconomy would appear, then, to call forthe retrenchment of funding andresearch support for the humanitiesrather than a withdrawal of publicfunding.

SKILLS AND TRAINING:LIFE-LONG LEARNING FOR ALL?

In the most recent speech from thethrone the federal governmentannounced its intention to renew theinfrastructure of skills and training inCanada. As part of this process, theCanadian Federation of Studentsparticipated in a national roundtable onskills and learning in Edmonton, March21-22. The roundtable, hosted byHuman Resources DevelopmentMinister Jane Stewart, drewparticipants from all regions of thecountry and almost all social sectorswere represented. The set of finalrecommendations to emerge from thediscussions reflected a clear consensusamong the participants. It is in thecontext of the final report of thenational roundtable and thecomprehensive federal report entitledStepping Up: Skills and Opportunitiesin the Knowledge Economy that we willoffer our assessment of the skills andtraining challenges Canada faces.

The dominant theme of the roundtable’sfinal report was twofold. First, that thefederal government needed to play aprominent role in funding andadministering a national skills strategy.Such a national approach wouldaddress the shortcoming of the currentpiecemeal approach to skills andtraining. Second, the need for universalaccess to skills and training must formthe foundation of any national skillsstrategy. In order to achieve that goal,funding must be restored to Canada’spublic colleges and universities.

The burgeoning private, for-profittraining industry is in no position toprovide solutions to the employmentshortages and skills gap that the

Recommendation # 6:The federal government shouldrestructure the CFI in order toensure that matching funds fromthe private sector are not acondition of public funding for aresearch project. In addition, thefederal government shoulddouble funding for publicresearch over the next ten years.

Recommendation # 7:The federal government shouldprovide an additional $100 millionper annum to the Social Scienceand Humanities Research Councilin order to equalise funding withthe other granting councils.


Canadian economy faces. Privatetraining is generally characterised byexorbitant tuition fees and sub-standardinstruction that leaves students mired indebt and bereft of the skills that drovethem to private trainers. Regrettably, itis changes in federal government policythat is pushing many unemployed andunderemployed Canadians to turn to theprivate training industry.

In 1996, the federal governmenteliminated the practice of bulkpurchases of seats at public institutionsas a means of providing re-training tounemployed workers. In place of thispurchase, unemployed workers nowreceive a voucher that can be used atboth public and private institutions. Thenew voucher system rarely providesenough funding for the recipient toobtain adequate training.

At private institutions workers are oftenforced to enter programs that offerneither the quality nor the durationnecessary to allow them to acquire theskills needed to participate in the neweconomy. This point is particularlytroubling given the fact that HumanResources Development Canada’slabour force studies demonstrate thatmost of the workers who turn to thefederal government for training havebeen displaced from jobs in theresource industry. In addition, thefederal government is now quicklyceding jurisdiction from trainingthrough the Employment Insurance Actto provincial governments. Though therecent speech from the throne and theongoing work on a major ‘White Paper’on skills, training and innovation arehopeful signs that the federalgovernment still believes it has animportant role to play in skills and

training, we believe that is importantthat the Employment Insuranceprogram continue to fund and supportworker re-training. In addition, wesupport the call for Canada to followthe lead of most European Unioncountries and allow the EI program tobe utilised for training leave. Such aprogram would mirror apprenticetraining programs that provide apowerful incentive to develop newskills by providing workers withincome while they learn.

Despite the compelling argument for apublic solution to the skills and trainingchallenges that Canada faces, thefederal government has contemplatedthe introduction of RegisteredIndividual Learning Accounts (RILA).In the initial stages of discussion, itappears that the RILA will replicate allof the inequalities endemic to the RESPprogram that was outlined earlier in thisbrief. Like RESPs, RILAs wouldexpend significant public resources toassist those who already have themeans to save for an education. Such aprogram will do nothing to assist thoseCanadians who need basic literacyskills and other forms of training thatform a pre-requisite for sustainableemployment.

In Britain, where a program similar tothe proposed RILA has beenimplemented, less than 25% of thosewho open a RILA are workers in needof basic re-training and skills. Inaddition, the RILA program in Britainhas been a boon for the private, for-profit training industry. Simply put, thesolution to the skills gap in Canada isnot to be found in repeating the errorsof the RESP and using public funds tosupport those who already have ample


access to skills and training. Theexperience in Britain demonstrates thatRILAs act more as a public subsidy forbusiness than as means of providingequal access to skills and training.Under the RILA model public fundssubsidise the training of employees inthe form of forgone tax revenue anddirect grants. In the British example,most of those who are opening accountsare participating in training programsthat previously would have been fundedby the employer.

Finally, if the federal government is toaddress the gap between access to skillsand the need for those skills among themost economically vulnerableCanadians it must reverse the recenttrends in Canada Student Loan Policyoutlined above. The implementation ofcredit checks and the discriminatorybankruptcy legislation are barriers tolifelong learning that should have noplace in a national skills agendadesigned for all Canadians.

CONCLUSION

There is little doubt about the socialand economic merit of post-secondaryeducation. However, public policydecisions taken by the federalgovernment in recent years hasundermined the vision of access topost-secondary education as a socialgood available to all Canadians. Thefederal policy trends outlined in thisbrief point to a system of post-secondary education that determinesaccess on the basis of the ability to payrather than merit or need. During the1960s and 1970s when participationrates were growing and post secondaryeducation opportunities wereexpanding, the federal governmentplayed a leadership role in ensuringaccess to education. Indeed, as FinanceMinster Paul Martin suggests, thefederal government is still, at leastrhetorically, devoted to the idea that allCanadians should have the opportunityto learn regardless of financialcircumstance.

Unfortunately, as all the hard dataattests, access to the skills andknowledge offered by post-secondaryeducation is quickly becoming aprivilege for the wealthy in Canada. Inthe face of this mounting challenge thefederal government has put together apatchwork of policy initiatives thatfocus largely on regressive tax creditsas inducements to save for education

Recommendation # 8:The federal government should re-institute the practice of blockpurchases of seats in public post-secondary institutions with thepurpose of supplying training tounemployed and underemployedworkers.

Recommendation #9:The federal government shouldintroduce a training leave programfunded through EmploymentInsurance. Such a program shouldallow workers up to 18 months ofpaid leave for training.

Recommendation #10:The federal government shouldretain juridiction over skills andtraining and tie its nationalstrategy to a national system ofneeds-based grants.


and increasing ties to private industry.Neither approach has improved thequality or accessibility of Canadiancolleges or universities. Accessible,public post-secondary education whichis of high quality will require thefederal government to re-dedicate itselfto the funding necessary to ensure realequality of opportunity. Ultimately,such funding is the only measurablestandard and proven solution to ensurethat the rhetoric of opportunity for allbecomes a reality that offers hope to all.We look forward to presenting thesearguments in person this fall.


NOTES

1. Canadian Association of University Teachers, Education Review Vol. 3 No. 3. “The GrowingFunding Gap: Government expenditures on post-secondary education, 2000-01.”

2 Canadian Association of University Teachers, Education Review Vol. 2 No. 1. “Out of Reach:Trends in household spending on education in Canada.”

3. Robinson, David & Andrew Jackson, Falling Behind: The state of working Canada, 2000.

4. Assembly of First Nations, First Nations Post Secondary Education Review (August 2000).

Career

Sub 200108 Finance