En Analysis of 2011-2012 Budgetary Measures

8/4/2019 En Analysis of 2011-2012 Budgetary Measures

1/37

Fdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec

Analysis of 2011-2012 BudgetaryMeasures

Study presented to the Comit consultatif sur laccessibilit financire aux tudes with a viewto the consultation concerning the le Plan de financement des universits qubcoises 2011-

2017

Adopted for the 151st meeting of the General Special Congress(CGS-15111)

July 11, 2011In Montral


2/37

The Fdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec (FEUQ) is an organization that brings

together 15 student associations with more than 125,000 students from all levels of and every

region of Quebec. Established since 1989, its main mandate has been to defend the rights and

interests of students with governments and education stakeholders. Throughout its twenty years

of existence, it has endeavored to defend a humanistic education as a societal choice. It focuses

particularly on defending its members before, during and after their passage in university by

demanding, above all, an accessible and quality education.

Fdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec

15 rue Marie-Anne Ouest2e tageMontral (Qubec)H2W 1B6Telephone: (514) 396-3380Fax: (514) 396-7140

Analysis and writing Laurent Gauthier, vice-president of university affairs

Martine Desjardins, president

Linguistic revision Martine Desjardins, president

All rights reserved FEUQ 2011


3/37

Analysis of the 2011-2012 budgetary measuresFdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec - 2011

ii

The member student associations of the FEUQ

ADEESE -UQAM

Association des tudiantes et destudiants de la Facult dessciences de lducation delUniversit du Qubec

Montral

AECSP

Association des tudiants descycles suprieurs de

Polytechnique

AEENAP

Association tudiante de lcolenationale dadministration

publique

AEP

Association des tudiants dePolytechnique

AEUCS

Association des tudiants del'INRS Urbanisation Culture et

Socit

AGECALE

Association gnrale destudiants et tudiantes du

Campus de Lvis

AGECAR

Association gnrale destudiants du campus Rimouski

AGEIAF

Association gnrale tudiantede lInstitut Armand-Frappier

AGEUQAT

Association gnrale tudiantede lUniversit du Qubec en

Abitibi-Tmiscamingue


4/37


iii

AESG

Association tudiante de lcoledes Sciences de la gestion de

lUQAM

CSU

Concordia Student Union

FACUM

Fdration des associationstudiantes du campus delUniversit de Montral

FEUS

Fdration tudiante delUniversit de Sherbrooke

MAGE-UQAC

Mouvement des associations

gnrales tudiantes delUniversit du Qubec Chicoutimi

PGSS

Post-Graduate Students Societyof McGill University


5/37


iv

List of recommendations

1.1. That the special allocation covering the increase in tuition fees be paid out in theform of a bursary to all recipients without exception, and that it not lead to anyincrease in indebtedness.

2. That the maximum loan limit of student financial assistance not be increased.

3. That the exemption amounts for the maintenance of a family unit be establishedat $45,000 and subsequently indexed.

4. That Student Financial Assistance increase the amount of allowable expenses forrecipients of student financial assistance, notably for the improvement of theamounts for living expenses and transportation expenses for students that do nothave access to public transit. Transport expenses for non-residents and Internetexpenses must also be included in allowable expenses.

5. That the Ministry of Education Leisure and Sports introduce an automaticannual indexation mechanism of all allowable expenses in the calculation ofStudent Financial Assistance. That this indexation be equivalent to the ConsumerPrice Index (CPI) for the year concerned

6. That the Ministry of Education, Leisure and Sports index in a retroactive mannerthe parameters of the student financial assistance program to fill the years of non-indexation and reflect the increase in the cost of living.

7. That the increase in allowable expenses and their annual indexation be translatedby an increase in bursaries and the number of beneficiaries having a right to abursary, and that it have no impact on the maximum limit of the current loan.

8. That the amounts allocated to Quebec from the Canada Student Grants Programare used to improve the financial assistance program of Quebec, notably throughthe maintenance of the amount from grants to bursaries.

9. That the entirety of the amounts transferred for the Financial Assistance programthrough transfers on tuition fees serve the Financial Assistance program

10.That the government of Quebec renounce the fee hikes announced in the 2011-2012 Budget

11.That the government of Quebec actively work in reducing student indebtedness


6/37


v

List of acronyms

SFA Student Financial Assistance

CCAFE Comit consultatif sur laccessibilit financire aux tudes

CNCS-FEUQ Conseil national des cycles suprieurs de la Fdration tudianteuniversitaire du Qubec

CRPUQ Confrence des recteurs et des principaux des universits du Qubec

CSE Conseil suprieur de lducation

FTE Full-time equivalents

LFS Labour Force Survey

CMSF Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation

FEUQ Fdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec

MIF Mandatory Institutional Fees

EPF Established programs financing

FQPPU Fdration qubcoise des professeures et professeurs duniversits

ISQ Institut de la statistique du Qubec

MELS Ministre de lducation, du Loisir et du Sport

MFQ Ministre des Finances du Qubec

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

RESP Registered Education Savings Plan

CST Canada Social Transfer

CHT Canada Health Transfer


7/37


vi

Table of contents

THE MEMBER STUDENT ASSOCIATIONS OF THE FEUQ ............................................................................ II

LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................... IV

LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................................... VTABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................................... VI

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................................. VII

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................................... VII

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 1

2. CONTEXT SURROUNDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2011-2012 BUDGETCONCERNING UNIVERSITY FINANCING .......................................................................................................... 2

2.1. THE FINANCING PLAN OF UNIVERSITIES .................................................................................................................. 22.2. THE OBJECTIVES OF REINVESTMENT ........................................................................................................................ 4

3. STUDENT CONDITION .................................................................................................................................. 63.1. WHO IS THE AVERAGE STUDENT? ............................................................................................................................. 63.2. THE STUDENT BUDGET................................................................................................................................................ 73.3. ABILITY OF PARENTS TO SUPPORT THE STUDENT .................................................................................................. 83.4. STUDENT INDEBTEDNESS ........................................................................................................................................... 83.5. PERCEPTION OF COSTS ................................................................................................................................................ 9

4. ANALYSIS OF MEASURES AFFECTING STUDENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE .............................. 104.1. THE CURRENT SITUATION........................................................................................................................................ 104.2. THE REINVESTMENT OF $118 MILLION................................................................................................................ 104.3. THE INCREASE IN THE SPECIAL ALLOCATION ....................................................................................................... 124.4. INCREASE OF THE THRESHOLD OF THE PARENTAL CONTRIBUTION ................................................................. 12

4.5. TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES FOR PART

-TIME STUDENTS IN THE REGIONS

................................................... 144.6. IMPROVEMENT OF THE DEFERRED REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM ...................................................................... 144.7. SUMMARY OF MEASURES REGARDING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE ......................................................................... 15

5. ANALYSIS OF MEASURES AFFECTING TUITION FEES ...................................................................... 175.1. OVERALL STUDENT BILL .......................................................................................................................................... 175.2. THE IMPACT OF THE HIKES...................................................................................................................................... 185.3. THE USE OF AMOUNTS .............................................................................................................................................. 20

6. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................................. 24

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................................. 28


8/37


vii

List of figures

FIGURE 1: DISTRIBUTION OF UNIVERSITY FINANCING IN 2016-2017 .................................................................................. 3FIGURE 2: STUDENT BILL IN 2011 ............................................................................................................................................. ........... 16FIGURE 3: PROGRESSION OF THE STUDENT BILL FROM 1994 TO 2016............................................................................ 18FIGURE 4: DISTRIBUTION OF ADDITIONAL RESOURCES BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT ACTORS ............................. 22

List of tables

TABLE 1: FINANCING PLAN OF QUEBEC UNIVERSITIES ............................................................................................................... 4TABLE 2: REVENUES AND EXPENSES PLANNED FOR STUDENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE (IN MILLIONS OF

DOLLARS) .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 11TABLE 3 LOW-INCOME CUTOFF OF STATISTICS CANADA, BEFORE TAXES, 2008 ..................................................... 13TABLE 4: PERCENTAGE OF FAMILY INCOME REPRESENTING THE LIVING EXPENSES OF A STUDENT ............. 19TABLE 5: EFFECT OF THE TUITION FEE HIKE OF 2007 ON THE FINANCING OF UNIVERSITIES ........................... 21


9/37

Analysis of the Budgetary Measures, 2011-2012Fdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec - 2011

1

1.IntroductionDuring its last budget, March 17, 2011, the government of Quebec announced a tuitionfee hike. This hike represents in all an amount of $1,625: $325 per year, cumulated

during five years. We will then reach a situation in 2016-2018, where we have a studentbill oscillating between $4,700, with the pursuit of ancillary fee increases. This consists ofan increase of 75% of tuition fees. Its scope is comparable to that imposed by theBourassa government in 1990, an increase that reduced access to studies in Quebec aswell as weakened the financial conditions of university students. According to theforecasts of the variations of the student population carried out for the Ministry ofFinances, the total student part flowing from the university investment plan willcorrespond to $332 million in 2016-2017.

The hike in fees will represent a greater increase of the use of the loans and bursariesprogram than the current system is capable of absorbing. To compensate for this reality,the portion of tuition fees transferred into the program increased by 35%. Theannounced improvements of the loans and bursaries program are largely assumed byuniversity students, and out of the $118 million announced in the budget, $116 millioncame from the pockets of students and the balance, namely $2 million, is advanced bythe government. This amount seems quite slender in comparison to the approximateadditional $70 million that are paid annually by virtue of the Canada Student GrantProgram (CSGP) and that the government still refuses to invest in Student FinancialAssistance.

Considering all these new budgetary measures, the FEUQ asked the Comit consultatif

surlaccessibilit financire aux tudes, to decide to produce a study that is intended as ananalysis of the budgetary measures announced last March. Subsequently, thesemeasures will be analyzed according to accessibility to studies. A series ofrecommendations conclude the study and highlight the different demands of the FEUQ.


10/37


2

2. Context surrounding the implementation of the 2011-2012 budgetconcerning university financing

From the outset, the decision that is presented in the last budget of March 17, is viewedas the logical result to the Meeting of the Education Partners (MEP) of December 6, 2010.

This meeting should allow us to find solutions regarding the financing of universityeducation, to the financial accessibility to studies and the performance of universities.Now, the Meeting included a secondary objective, namely to push the consensus on thetuition fee hike. The representatives of actors from the university milieu were invited,but they found themselves in a minority situation since various groups having a weaklink with the postsecondary education network were convened, notably the differentchambers of commerce. The actors of the university milieu, with the exception of therectors, thus chose to leave the Meeting en bloc to not be forced to endorse this falseconsensus.

For their part, the rectors continued to support their argument on the underfunding ofuniversities, mainly based on a calculation taking into account the difference of the feespaid in Quebec universities in relation to their counterparts in the rest of Canada. Themethodology paid by the CRPUQ did not even attempt to evaluate the needs of theuniversity milieu, and was publicly denounced by the actors of the university milieu.

2.1. The financing plan of universitiesIn a general manner, the budget completely endorses the thesis of CREPUQ by puttingforward the necessity of filling a gap of $620 M in relation to the rest of Canada. Theobjective over time is to fill this difference, and even to be able to increase the financing

of universities beyond this average discrepancy.The principles of the reinvestment are:

- To maintain the real financing by student until 2016-2017;- To reinvest additional resources in Quebec universities to give Quebec the

means of fulfilling its ambitions.

The proposal of additional financing planned by the government of Quebec, over time,adds up to $850 million. From this amount:

- $320 M will serve to cover the indexation of the grant (subsidy) per student;- $530 M to reinvest in different priorities.

From this amount, it is planned that students must assume 31.2%, the government ofQuebec 50.6% and donations and other revenues of universities should fill thedifference. The explosion of tuition fees responds to a governmental desire to increasethe contribution of students so that all contribute their just part in the overallfinancing of universities and make it go from 12.7% in 2009 to 16.9% in 2017. This just


11/37


3

part is calculated according to the student contribution of the years 1964-1965 that roseto 26.4%. These data do not exactly reflect reality. In 2011-2012, students will have made46% of the last reinvestment in education, while the provincial and federal governmentswill have only contributed 27% each. The latest figures show that students havecontributed more than their part in university financing, since for each student dollar

invested, the government of Quebec only provided $.59 (FEUQ. 2010d).

Figure 1: Distribution of university financing in 2016-2017

Source : Un plan de financement des universits quitable et quilibr, Budget du Qubec 2011-2012, Ministre desFinances

The table below details the distribution of amounts that each of the actors must inject.Without going into detail, which will be made explicit in the following sections, weshould mention that that students must assume an additional increase of $332 M; thegovernment of Quebec must for its part inject an additional $430 M and the othersources of revenues, such as philanthropy, will soak up the difference. We should point

out in this regard that, despite the public discourse of university directors and thegovernment, businesses are not made to contribute more and do not receive anyincentive to do so.

Moreover, the government of Quebec completely abandoned its demands concerningthe reinvestment of the federal government in social transfers at the level preceding the


12/37


4

cuts of 1994. This represents an additional amount of $820 M to reinvest in ouruniversities, namely the quasi-totality of the effort required from one party and another.

Table 1: Financing plan of Quebec universities


2.2. The objectives of reinvestmentIn regard to the manner of spending the additional amounts set out in the governmentplan, the path taken goes in the sense the FEUQ has demanded for several years:

1) Better accountability reporting;2) Financing linked to specific objectives.

That said, what we proposed during the Meeting of the Education Partners was muchmore ambitious in this regard. Moreover, the government put the cart before the horses


13/37


5

by first allocating the financing and then deciding to reform the governance ofuniversities and the allocation modalities of their financing.

As a reminder, this is what the FEUQ proposed during the MEP:

1) The setting up of estates general on universities to target the financing objectivesfor the qualitative improvement of university education in Quebec;2) The setting up of the University Policy (dating to 2000)3) The setting up of a Commission for the Evaluation of Universities should allow

us: To improve the governance of universities; Improve the transparency of universities; Improve accountability reporting; Improve the quality of education offered; Better coordinate the university network to maximize the use of resources

and put an end to the sterile race for clientele.

Before being able to evaluate if the student contribution is just and fair, it is important tosupport their financial conditions and their funding possibilities. Thus, we will be betterable to understand the impact that the announced tuition fees during the last budgetwill have on this population.


14/37


6

3. Student conditionIn 2010-2011, the FEUQ produced the Survey on the sources and modes of funding universityundergraduate students. This study, conducted on 12,619 respondents during the year2008-2009, draws an overall portrait of the undergraduate university population. The

data obtained are, moreover, very close to those collected in 2007 by Student FinancialAssistance, in the Enqute sur les conditions de vie des tudiants de la formationprofessionnelle, du collgial et de luniversit. The FEUQ also produced in 2007, the studyThe sources and modes of funding graduate students. These three researches, as well as ThePrice of Knowledge, 3rd edition, of the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, allowus to obtain a rather accurate portrait of the Quebec student population.

3.1. Who is the average student?The average full-time student is on average 22.9 years of age at the undergraduate level,28.5 years at the masters and 31.2 years at the doctorate. According to the most recent

data of the ministry in 2010-2011, 82.9% of students were at the undergraduate level,12.7% were at the masters and 4.3% were at the doctorate (MELS, 2011). According tothe data of Student Financial Assistance, 39.1% of university students had recourse tostudent financial assistance in 2007 (AFE, 2007), the Federation obtained a similarnumber two years later.

University students mostly live outside the family nest. In fact, only 32.2% of universityundergraduate students declare living with their parents (FEUQ, 2010a), while thisnumber was reduced to 11% of masters students and 5.9% of doctoral students (CNCS-FEUQ, 2007). The main reason (47.1%) evoked by students to explain that they no longer

live with their parents during their studies is the fact that the family home is situated farfrom the educational institution attended (AFE, 2007). The second reason (30.1%) is thesearch for autonomy, often correlated with age. This explains why the percentages ofgraduate students living with their parents are lower.

On the other hand, it is important to emphasize that many university students are firstgeneration, that is to say that their parents have a college or lower level of education.According to the data collected by Student Financial Assistance (AFE, 2007), then by theresearch of the FEUQ on the sources and modes of funding (FEUQ, 2010a), about 45% ofuniversity students have parents that have never attended university. This rate increasesto 70% for universities situated in the regions. While the economy of Quebec transforms

itself and demands more and more new workers to have a high-level education and thatsuccessive governments implement measures to encourage greater graduation of thepopulation, these statistics lead to two observations. Firstly, the policies of accessibilityto studies have allowed us to considerably increase attendance in postsecondary studies,a beneficial situation for the province. Secondly, these figures remind us that thetendency is young in Qubec, particularly in the regions, and that it is easily shaken by


15/37


7

policies directly affecting the financial accessibility of future students. The study ofFinancial Assistance indicates to us that the beneficiaries of the financial assistanceprogram also have more chances of being first-generation students than their colleagueswho are not recipients of the program (AFE, 2007). This population is thus morevulnerable to policies reducing accessibility to studies.

3.2. The student budgetThe annual average budget of students is situated at $13,300 per year. By observing thequartiles, we observe that 25% of the university full-time student population at theundergraduate level lives under $7,400 per year and that 50% of students have a totalannual budget of $12,200 or less (FEUQ, 2010a).

For this same university year, tuition fees of $2,168 thus represented more than 17.5% oftheir budget. To these expenditures are added mandatory institutional fees, whoseaverage is situated at $624.25 (FEUQ 2010b) and expenses for school textbooks at an

average of $670 annually (FEUQ 2010a). Once agglomerated, the expenditures forstudies represents a bit more than 25% of the overall income of the majority of students.

In order to pay these amounts, we observe a strong percentage of students workingduring their studies. Thus, during the questionnaire that the Federation distributed toproduce the research, 81% of full-time students declared having worked to meet theirneeds. The majority of respondents of the study declared working at least 16 hours perweek, and this even during the university term. The Canada Millennium ScholarshipFoundation declared in 2009 (FCBEM, 2009) that students enrolled full-time in auniversity or a college work more than ever. In fact, according to the Labour ForceSurvey (LFS) [of Statistics Canada], 52% of women and 41% of men aged 20-24 yearswho were studying full-time held a job during the during the 2007-2008 university year(Usalcas et Bowlby, 2006).

Such a great number of work hours greatly affects the ability of students to concentrateon their studies. In effect, the fact of working 20 hours and more per week whilepursuing full-time studies can raise the level of stress, have an effect on academicperformance and increase absenteeism and run the risk of dropping out (Usalcas,2006). On its side, the CCAFE affirms that beyond 15 hours of work per week,academic results are affected (CCAFE, 2004).

In graduate students, the annual average income is slightly higher, with an average ofaround $24,000, including grants for study projects. However, we should stress thatonly 29.8% of students receive such grants, and their distribution is unequal between thesectors: 40.5% of students in the pure and applied sciences receive one compared to 15%of students in education. Out of the total remuneration, 47.8% came from hours workedoutside the campus, and 11.2% for hours worked on campus, for a total of 59% of theannual budget coming from work (CNCS-FEUQ, 2007).


16/37


8

In graduate studies, it is a bit more than 70% of students who say they have to workduring their studies to meet their needs and the average hours they must work inaddition to their studies was 25.1 h. Of course, the consequences related to such a highnumber of hours worked by undergraduate students also applies to graduate studies.We should also mention that the prolongation of studies in graduate studies has

harmful effects both for the student researcher and society since his professionalintegration into the workplace is thus delayed (CNCS-FEUQ, 2008).

3.3. Ability of parents to support the studentA myth that is often spread is the ability of families to pay for the studies of theirchildren. According to the data collected by Student Financial Assistance, only 60.7% ofstudents received parental aid, while the number dropped to 34.5% in recipients of theloans and bursaries program (AFE, 2007).

If we study the population more in-depth, we observe that 60% of undergraduate

students received such financial assistance, and that this assistance only represents22.4% of their total budget. In absolute numbers, parental aid attained $2,600 for at leasthalf the students receiving parental aid. By adding tuition fees and mandatoryinstitutional fees, this amount does not represent a sufficient amount to pay for theenrolment at university. Furthermore, 25% of them (thus 15% of students in total) had tocontent themselves with an amount of $1,500 or less, which does not attain the currentlevel of tuition fees (FEUQ, 2010a). In their graduate studies colleagues, 33% of studentsreceived such aid and it represented between 21.7% and 53% of their incomes. Youngerstudents received a greater contribution from their parents. Graduate students receivedon average a higher parental aid, with an average of $5,150 (CNCS-FEUQ, 2007).

The FEUQ thus concludes that if parents do not provide minimally the moneyassociated with enrollment costs at the university, it is not that they do not want this.They can simply not help their children more.

3.4. Student indebtednessThe annual indebtedness is distributed among various sources of indebtedness. Thus,42.5% of students accumulate a debt from SFA, 26.7% accumulate debts related to acredit card, 20.9% have access to a line of credit or a personal loan and 16.9% indebtthemselves to their family or friends. Obviously, a proportion of them accumulatedifferent sources. In total, 60.4% of full-time undergraduate university studentsaccumulate debts during their studies, with the average debt being nearly $14,000. Halfof them have a debt attaining at least $11,000, which greatly harms their chances ofpursuing graduate studies (FEUQ, 2010a).

In graduate studies, accumulated indebtedness during studies rises on average to $3,810for masters students in 2005-2006 and this amount rises to $19,265 for doctoral students.


17/37


9

The question of the distribution of the debt was not posed for these students, but there isno reason to believe that it is significantly different from that of their colleagues at thebachelors (CNCS-FEUQ, 2007).

This indebtedness has a direct effect on the chances of students beginning their

university studies or completing them. Thus, financial factors were the first evoked(38.2%) to explain the abandonments or interruption of studies and arrived in secondplace (31.2%) of the motives explaining the prolongation of studies, just after academicmotives (44.4%), including changes of program and academic difficulties (FEUQ, 2010a).These three phenomena have concrete impacts on Quebec society, depriving the latter ofqualified graduates in a definitive or temporary manner. The Canada MillenniumScholarship Foundation noted that 25% of youth wished to pursue their studies uponleaving high school, but did not do so invoking financial reasons to explain their choice(FCBEM, 2009). While departures and prolongations caused by academic motives can bereduced, up to a certain point, thanks to support services offered to students, it is

ridiculous that Quebec deprives itself of graduates for purely monetary reasons. In thesame vein, it is inconceivable to break career ambitions for these reasons.

3.5. Perception of costsAlthough Quebec has given itself a financial assistance program allowing it tocompensate for the differences in the financing of students, it cannot completely erasethe differences between youth coming from well-off backgrounds and moredisadvantaged backgrounds. In fact, a major difference exists between these two groups:the student coming from the most disadvantaged backgrounds will come out of thecourse of studies with higher debts. Furthermore, youths from disadvantaged families

have more fears in relation to indebtedness, and that related to the pursuit of the studyproject is no exception. In this regard, the CCAFE (2004) issues a solid caution to thiseffect:

It is therefore not surprising that all tuition fee hikes are perceived, especially in the mostdisadvantaged, as an additional barrier in regard to access to university studies. A hike, inparticular, if it is substantial, can have significant consequences on the already weakparticipation of people from disadvantaged backgrounds, even if we maintain or adapt thestudent financial assistance programs.

There is therefore no reason that, this time, the conditions are different and that studentsleaving college studies not have a negative reaction in regard to credit that they will

have to accumulate to pursue their studies at university. However, these fearssometimes have a real foundation. Thus, according to the Canada MillenniumScholarship Foundation, nearly three-quarters of students at the end of high schoolexpect to have a bursary/grant or financial assistance to go to university, but only 43%will receive it in fact (FCBEM, 2006).


18/37


10

4.Analysis of measures affecting student financial assistanceThe student financial assistance program is an integral part of our education system. Itallows students coming from less advantaged backgrounds to access higher educationand thus have access to the career of their choice, within the limits of their academic

abilities. It is the organ by which Quebec society recognizes the importance of socialmobility and the equality of opportunity for all. The FEUQ recognizes the primordialimportance of this program. However, the SFA is not a magic balm on the financialtroubles of disadvantaged students. In fact, it supposes an indebtedness of benefitrecipients, certainly less important than if the program did not exist, but thisindebtedness remains a ball and chain once studies are completed.

4.1. The current situationAlthough allowing hundreds of students to have access to financing to help them paythe amounts associated with the pursuit of their studies project, the financial assistance

program suffers from numerous shortcomings. In fact, the absence of an automaticindexation mechanism of the program has caused, throughout time, a lack ofcorrespondence between real costs and the allowable expenses of the program. TheAuditor General of Quebec noted that living expenses taken into account by theprogram was among the lowest of all student financial assistance programs throughoutCanada (VGQ, 2006). Next, the obligation of the parental contribution begins at a muchlower level in Quebec than the rest of Canada, which has the direct effect that studentswhose family income are substantially weaker (about $30,000 per year) are deprived offinancial assistance. In comparison, the minimal threshold of the parental contributionin the rest of Canada is $45,000 (CCAFE, 2004). The maximum duration of the program

is also constraining and does not allow the bachelors student to make a faux pas, andby supposing the rapidly successful completion of higher education, while thepercentage of students exceeding 16 months of studies at the masters and 32 months atthe doctorate is rather high (CNCS-FEUQ, 2008).

We should also note a disparity in all the living expenses taken into account in thecalculation of assistance granted. In this regard, the Minister of Immigration requiresfrom international students that they prove their ability to pay their living expenses at alevel that is nearly $200 higher per month than that taken into account by SFA. Thisdisparity is striking, especially as the accounting of the parameters is the same. WillQuebecers be content with living on so little? Finally, various expenses such as access toInternet are still considered as a luxury by SFA, while they are in fact a necessity for thesuccess of university study projects (FEUQ, 2010c).

4.2. The reinvestment of $118 millionThe planned hike in tuition fees will also generate additional monetary inflows for theSFA program thanks to the transfer of 25% of the amounts paid. However, with the


19/37


11

current rate, the amount that will have been transferred to financial assistance will notsuffice to cover the maintenance of the current maximum loan limits for recipients ofloans and bursaries. The projected cost of this measure in terms of the financing plan is$85.8 million. According to the projection of student population, the hike would bringin, in 2015-2016, $332 million. By using the current percentage (25%) we obtain a transfer

of $83 million for SFA. The shortfall for the program would thus be $2.9 million, withouttaking into account the special allocation. The real difference will thus be much higher.

The fee hike thus represents a greater increase in the use of the loans and bursariesprogram than the current program is capable of absorbing with its current parameters.To compensate, the portion transferred has been increased to 35%. The improvementsannounced in the loans and bursaries programs are largely assumed by universitystudents: out of $118 million, over time, $116 million come from the pocket of students.This amount seems quite slender in comparison to the some 70 million additionaldollars that are annually paid to the government of Quebec by the Canada Student

Grants Program (CSGP) and that the government still refuses to invest in StudentFinancial Assistance.

Furthermore, the reinvestment being shifted from one year in relation to the fee hike,taking effect between 2012-2013 and 2016-2017, the system will consequently be subjectto intense pressures during all the duration of the hike to maintain the current level ofmaximum loan amounts, and thus indebtedness, for about one-third of students. Thelast line of Table 2 also shows that the amounts transferred correspond each year to ahigher amount than the increase in expenses, except for the last year. Over time, thegovernment will thus have harvested through retaining amounts on tuition fees $20.5million, with the government only investing the money beginning in 2017-2018. Where

will this government go? This question has not until the present been answered yet.

Table 2: Revenues and expenses planned for Student Financial Assistance (in millions of dollars)2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

2015-2016

2016-2017

2017-2018

Total

Amounts retained by StudentFinancial Assistance

21,0 46,0 70,0 93,0 116,0 116,0 462,0

Maintenance of maximum loanlimits

10,8 26,9 43,6 61,1 79,3 85,8 307,5

Increase of the specialallocation

0,7 2,0 3,2 3,5 3,6 3,7 16,7

Reduction of the contribution of

parents and the spouse 5,6 9,6 16,0 22,0 26,0 26,6 105,8Transportation expenses forpart-time students that study inthe regions

0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,6

Improvement of the deferredreimbursement program

__ 2,2 2,2 2,2 2,2 2,2 11,0

Increase in Student FinancialAssistance

17,1 40,8 65,1 88,9 111,2 118,4 441,5


20/37


12

Difference in favor of thegovernment

3,9 5,2 4,9 4,1 4,8 -2,4 20,5


4.3. The increase in the special allocationDenounced since its implementation during the 2007 hike, the special allocation hasbeen renewed. We must point out that it is addressed to students having the right to amaximum loan limit, but that do not attain the threshold for bursaries. The allocation isthus an increase of the loan to compensate for the tuition fee hike: it is thus an indirectincrease of the maximum loan limit for these students. Due to the hike, the indebtednessof student recipients of loans alone will thus increase at the rate of $325 annually, for acumulated total of $1,950 for a student beginning his three-year bachelors at thebeginning of the period, and $4,875 for a student beginning his three-year bachelors in2015-2016. We should note to this effect that various programs, such as education andengineering, is given in four years, which will inflate these amounts to $3,250 and$6,500, respectively.

To this effect, the CCAFE (2007) wrote:

Research tends to show that bursaries have a positive effect on academic perseveranceand the success of studies (Fondation canadienne des bourses dtudes du millnaire,2006b), whereas increasing indebtedness, if it does not necessarily harm success at theundergraduate level, impedes access to graduate studies in students that are highlyindebted (Dubois, 2006) and makes more difficult socio-professional integration whensome of them discover that their studies debt-income ratio limits their actionpossibilities (Fondation canadienne des bourses dtudes du millnaire, 2007).

The Committee also insisted on the importance of maintaining student indebtedness atthe lowest level possible. The FEUQ agrees on this point with the CCAFE and doubtsthat the measures put in place in the 2011-2012 budget are a significant step to reducestudent indebtedness, an essential measure according to the Federation to ensurefinancial accessibility for all Quebecers. This measure is also an underhanded way ofincreasing the maximum loan limit for students that cannot benefit from the bursariesprogram of SFA.

4.4. Increase of the threshold of the parental contributionAs we saw in the introduction to this section, the current threshold of the parentalcontribution is not adjusted to the real situation of Quebec families, by being largelybelow real threshold where parents can reasonably begin to contribute to the educationof their children. The direct effect of this situation is the indebtedness of students thatneed financial help, but who see this refused because the income of their parents justexceeds an amount that is arbitrarily fixed too low. These students must thus turntoward another source of funding, often private, that has the effect of much higher


21/37


13

indebtedness than if the student had had access to loans and bursaries. Another choiceoffered to this student is to abandon his study project for a period of two years in orderto become independent from his parents, which creates costs that are both personal andsocial.

To this effect, the FEUQ has been demanding, for some years, an increase in thethreshold of the parental contribution taken into account by the SFA program. Thedemand of the Federation is to minimally fill the low-income cutoff and to approach theaid programs of other Canadian provinces by raising the parental contributionthreshold to $45,000 per year and ensuring an annual indexation of the amount.

Table 3 Low-income cutoff of Statistics Canada, before taxes, 2008

30,000 to 99,999 inhabitants 100,000 to 499,999inhabitants

500,000 inhabitants andmore

1 person 18 976 $ 19 094 $ 22 171 $

2 persons 23 623 $ 23 769 $ 27 601 $

3 persons 29 041 $ 29 222 $ 33 933 $

4 persons 35 261 $ 35 480 $ 41 198 $Source : Conseil national du bien-tre social 2008.

Moreover, the CCAFE took a similar position to that of the FEUQ in its study onfinancial accessibility and the success of study projects. The committee underlined that,to give relief to lower middle class families, it is necessary to reduce the parental contribution

required, for example by adjusting the grid of this contribution to that in force in the rest ofCanada, which requires a financial contribution only from families whose income exceeds$45,000 per year. The threshold is about $30,000 in Quebec (CCAFE 2004, p. 5).Furthermore, according to a study of the ministre de lducation published in 2003, 67.9%of student recipients of loans and bursaries at the university level do not receive aparental contribution (MELS, 2007).

The measure proposed concerning the family contribution is thus insufficient to fill thecurrent shortfalls of the program. The new threshold of $35,000 proposed over timebarely covers the indexation of the current threshold and does not correspond to asignificant improvement of the program. In 2016-2017, we will thus still be about$10,000 below the demand of the FEUQ and of that formulated in 2004 by the CCAFE.Furthermore, the amount will still not exceed the low-income cutoff of 2008, calculatedby Statistics Canada, while all the actors in society agree in affirming that the cost ofliving has increased since then. We can note the different increases in the minimumwage of the last years, bringing it to $9.65/h on May 1, 2011. Moreover, two parentsearning the minimum wage make $38,600 per year in 2011 and will make more in 2017


22/37


14

according to the future increases in the minimum wage. Despite this low family income,they will nevertheless have to continue contributing to the education of their children.As the parental contribution is considered automatic, the only recourse these studentsfrom disadvantaged families have, will be , once again, to appeal to the courts, while weknow very well that their parents are quite probably not even able to help them

financially.

As we will see further on, all of the measures presented to improve SFA will be paid bythe tuition fee hike. In this perspective, universities are currently paying for animprovement, however minimum it is, also affecting college students and professionaltraining, while the government puts in no money to help these very students. It wouldthus be just to use the amounts coming from the hike to maintain the maximum loanlimit for all students and that the government inject money to cover the improvements.

4.5. Transportation expenses for part-time students in the regionsOn a first reading this measure seems commendable. The details surrounding it makesus doubt its effectiveness and its real impact on the student population. Despite themisleading title that could allow us to imagine a real improvement for part-timestudents in the regions, the eligibility conditions also require that the student live withhis parents and study in an institution not serviced by a public transit system, whichfrom the outset excludes all main campuses of a Quebec university.

By taking into account the already restrictive access modalities to financial assistance forpart-time students, the FEUQ doubts that this measure will benefit a significant numberof students. Furthermore, the Ministry of Finances seems also of the opinion that themeasure will apply to a low number of students, if we believe the quantified forecasts tothis effect further on in the budget. Thus, the ministry estimates that 140 persons willmake use of the measure, which corresponds to less than one-one thousandth of thetotal student population.

4.6. Improvement of the deferred reimbursement programThe improvement of the deferred reimbursement program is addressed to ex-recipientsof student financial assistance who, for one reason or another, might have a low incomewhen leaving their academic studies. This low income can be explained by placementdifficulties or by an interruption or an abandonment of studies, whatever the reasonmay be. This assistance is addressed to people having left studies five years ago or lessand it is possible to benefit for a maximum of 24 months during a lifetime. The programis thus a way of ensuring a minimum quality of life by allowing these persons to delaythe repayment of their loan.

The improvement of the deferred reimbursement program is a step in the right directionto help students that do not succeed in obtaining a high salary when leaving their


23/37


15

studies, but that might nevertheless have a salary that is higher than the last levelpresently considered to completely delay the payment of the student loan. For an ex-student earning between $20,000 and $25,000, it is thus $1,152 per year more that he willnot have to allocate immediately to the payment of his debtan amount that is quitesignificant. We should also note that the government ensures the student the stability of

the amount that he must reimburse by paying the interest part associated with themonthly reimbursement. Unless the recipient voluntarily decides to increase hismonthly payments, this measure ensures that he will not devote more than 6% of hissalary to the reimbursement of his debt, while allowing him to make a real reduction ofthe amount that he has to reimburse.

For the FEUQ, the implementation of a progressive reimbursement taking into accountthe ability of the borrower to pay, while ensuring that the amount to reimburse does notswell during this period constitutes a real advance for the improvement of the livingconditions of less well off ex-students.

4.7. Summary of measures regarding financial assistanceIn brief, the measures included in the Student Financial Assistance program do notinclude a real improvement. The maintenance of the maximum loan limit for the lesswell off is good news, but, once again, the government is abandoning those who do nothave a right to bursaries, by substantially increasing student indebtedness that they willhave to accumulate during their studies. Furthermore, the raising of the parentalcontribution threshold is nothing other than the indexation of the current amount andremains well below the real needs of the program.

Also, the budget does not include any automatic indexation of the parameters of SFAand thus perpetuates a problem existing since its creation. Worse, the measuresproposed in the last decree already plan the progressive indexation of the threshold ofthe parental contribution up until an amount of $35,000, but does not set anything outconcerning allowable expenses and the benefits offered. This situation makes the FEUQfear that SFA will be neglected during the coming years.

The two blocs of four consecutive years, namely from 1995-1996 to 1998-1999 then from2002-2003 to 2006-2007 of non-indexation of living expenses taken into account by SFAare still as harmful to students and do not do justice to the real expenses incurred byrecipients to meet their most elementary needs. In fact, since 1994-1995, the modalities of

financial assistance were only indexed half the time. Furthermore, the successiveindexation of an amount that is systematically lower than the real costs engendered,year after year, leads to an increase in the gap between the program available and whatwill have been the case if it had followed the cost of living. We should remember,indexation does not constitute an improvement of the program, but rather a manner ofensuring that its real value does not diminish from year to year and that beneficiaries donot lose their purchasing power, which is already weak given the conditions of


24/37


16

recipients of loans and bursaries. To this effect, the FEUQ has been demanding for manyyears the retro-indexation of the missing years. We are forced to admit that this budgetdoes nothing to repair the errors of the past.

The 2011-2012 budget does not recognize the changes that have taken place in society

during the last decades, notably in regard to transportation and access to the Internet. Infact, it is easy to see how access to the Internet is in our day and age indispensable for auniversity student and is far from being a luxury. Yet, this is still how SFA considers it,relegating it to the monetary charges that must be assumed by the student. While moreand more material is provided by university administrations and professors by Internetand that emails have for many years become the most used means of communication insociety, including universities, it is completely aberrant to believe that students can dowithout this tool for their work, their research and simply to access their course notes.The expenses concerning transportation have also strongly fluctuated in the last years,increasing more rapidly than other expenses. Obviously, the non-indexation of the

program has not helped, to such an extent that allowable expenses today representabout half of what it cost to travel by car, for students living in zones that are badlyserviced by public transit.

These measures could have been put in place using amounts coming from the CanadaStudent Grants Program (CSGP) during the last years. The government has nonethelessdecided to ignore students and not to reinvest the additional amounts given by thefederal government. Last year, it is about $70 million that the government did not investin the student financial assistance program. Furthermore, it is strange to see what thegovernment plans to do with the transfer money and the amounts collected from thetuition fee hike. We strongly hope that that these amounts, if they are effectively

amassed, are used to improve SFA rather than go to the consolidated funds of thegovernment.


25/37


17

5.Analysis of measures affecting tuition fees5.1. Overall student billUniversity tuition fees have been constantly increasing since 2007. Furthermore,

although well regulated since this date, mandatory institutional fees continue increasingin a certain and constant manner. Combined, these increases total an average of about$600 in hikes for all Quebec students. In tuition fees alone, this represents an increase of30% since 2007.

According to the data collected by the FEUQ, the average institutional fees paid byQuebec students for the university year 2010-2011 throughout the university networkrose to $624.25 (FEUQ 2010b). They thus form a bit more than 20% of the total bill. Justlike tuition fees, they are incompressible and must be paid, for the most part, as of thebeginning of the academic year so that thestudent is considered as enrolled.

Figure 2 shows very well the relativeimportance of the different expenses related toeducation in 2010. Although tuition feesrepresent more than half the student bill, weeasily see the scope of the other expenses andthe importance of taking this into accountwhen we invoke the fees paid by students. TheCCAFE (2008) decried the fact that thegovernment did not seem to take into account

all the fees in its discourse. There does notseem to be have been any changes since.

The new hike announced in the 2011-2012budget represents an additional increase of75% of the tuition fee portion. Cumulated since2007, these hikes represent an increase of 127%,for a total of $3,793 in tuition fees. Thisrepresents more than double their level in 2007. By adding the average of mandatoryinstitutional fees paid by students and assuming a limited by the regulation currently ineffect, the total bill for enrolment will be nearly $4,700 in 2016-2017. The student bill

since 1994 and its projection until the end of the measures proposed in the budget arepresented in Figure 3.

2168 $624 $

683 $

Frais de scolaritFIOMatriel scolaire

Figure 2: Student bill in 2011


26/37


18

Figure 3: Progression of the student bill from 1994 to 2016

Contrary to the belief generally expressed, the student contribution to universityfinancing has thus continued to increase substantially and in a continuous manner in thelast decades. During the period of the tuition fee freeze, the growth of the overall bill,thus by taking into account mandatory institutional fees, approximates us more or lessto the growth of the CPI. We also have to point out that students also pay for diverseexpenses not accounted for in this chart, mostly for books and academic textbooks, butalso for equipment essential to their discipline such as, for example, laboratory

accessories. The overall annual bill is therefore even higher than what is presented here.

5.2. The impact of the hikesWhile fees are increasing rapidly, the student income, on the other hand, has fewchances of increasing at the same rate as the different fees required by universities. Thisreality will thus have a direct impact on the quality of life of students that do not haveaccess to complete financial assistance (loans and bursaries) because their parents havetoo high an income according to the criteria of SFA (we should note that the threshold ofthe parental contribution is too low). The impact will also be felt in students that have anaversion to debt pushing them to work rather than asking for loans and bursaries. These

students will have to make up for the hike otherwise, quite probably by increasing thenumber of hours worked. In this regard, we should note that with the minimum wage atthe level of today, the average rate for a good number of students, it would take 168additional hours of work only to pay the difference in tuition fees. By including theprojected increase of mandatory institutional fees, the FEUQ estimates that it would takenearly 5 complete weeks of additional work to pay the difference. The increase will thushave a certain impact on the indebtedness of these students.

1500

1800

2100

2400

2700

3000

3300

36003900

4200

4500

4800

Period of tuition fee freeze


27/37


19

We should not forget that another particularly vulnerable category of students alsoexists: interns in the health and education sectors. In fact, most of these programsrequire that students complete non-remunerated internships to graduate. For internshaving access to SFA grants, the situation is not worse than the other benefit recipientsof loans and bursaries. However, the wound hurts particularly for those who count on a

remunerated salary to pay their tuition fees, since they will not have the opportunity ofusing this option, unless they cumulate, in addition to the full-time internship, anotherjob and academic charges that can sometimes be assumed at the same time. In brief, thiscategory of student, already at risk of indebtedness, will be even more affected oncetheir tuition fees are increased by $1,625 $ annually.

This perspective of additional indebtedness is alone sufficient to discourage certainpersons to pursue secondary studies, to stop their studies already started, or to revisethe planning of their academic path and to remove certain steps, which could have aneffect on graduate studies enrolments (FEUQ, 2010a).

Moreover, we should note as the perfect illustration of this phenomenon, the drasticchange in the social composition of students in medicine. In fact, a survey conducted inCanada in 2010 (Merani et coll., 2010) throughout Canada showed that Quebec studentsin medicine had greater chances of coming from remote areas from the large urbancenters or disadvantaged backgrounds than their Canadian colleagues. They are alsosubject to less stress related to their studies. The study concludes that students comingfrom rural or disadvantaged backgrounds were more susceptible of practicing in thesemilieus once they graduated from university. The change was particularly striking at theUniversity of Western Ontario, which saw the percentage of students in medicine whosefamily income was under $60,000 go from 35.6% in 1997 to 14.% in 2000 (FEUQ 2010e).

Furthermore, as we mentioned previously, the mode generally recognized by thestudent financial assistance program in the case where the student cannot assume alonehis expenses is the parental contribution. Now, we have seen that a great percentage ofparents can simply not pay more for the education of their children.

By taking the average expenses for living expenses incurred in 2009 by students ($9,960)(FEUQ, 2010a) and by indexing the amount at the same rate as SFA (we suppose here anindexation of the program), then by adding the total amounts of the student bill, we canfind the portion of the family income that represents the expenses of their children (seetable 4).

Table 4: Percentage of family income representing the living expenses of a student

Income 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Total

expenses13 264,72 $ 13 420,04 $ 13 983,45 $ 14 552,74 $ 15 128,07 $ 15 709,64 $

100 000 13% 13% 14% 15% 15% 16%


28/37


20

90 000 15% 15% 16% 16% 17% 17%80 000 17% 17% 17% 18% 19% 20%70 000 19% 19% 20% 21% 22% 22%60 000 22% 22% 23% 24% 25% 26%50 000 27% 27% 28% 29% 30% 31%40 000 33% 34% 35% 36% 38% 39%35 000 38% 38% 40% 42% 43% 45%

We rapidly notice that the living expenses take a disproportionate importance inrelation to salary. Even with a salary of $100,000, these expenses correspond, over time,to 16% of income. For families on minimum wage, namely just above $35,000 per year,where no contribution is required, the total fees of the student represent 45% of income.Of course, students also contribute to their studies, but we now understand easily whyparents cannot follow the cadence. The FEUQ thus concluded that if parents do notminimally provide money associated with enrollment costs at university, it is not

because they do not want to. They simply cannot help their children more.

In brief, these measures do not just affect the indebtedness of the student properlyspeaking, but also that of all the family. The familial economic situation can effectivelydiscourage some from pursuing their studies.

We should remember that various factors influence participation in postsecondarystudies. A literature review shows that in addition to the cost of studies, the livingmilieu of the student, the prior success of the university, age, perception of costs, thepresence of dependent children and the distance between the family milieu and theeducational institution all have a more or less considerable effect on the decision topursue studies or not (FEUQ, 2010a; CNCS-FEUQ, 2007). In light of these factors, it iseasy to conclude that the government cannot, in a general manner, influence the choiceof the student otherwise than by financial methods, since there are few levers directlyaffecting the other facets concerning the choice of the student. While Quebec has reliedon the knowledge of its workers to carve out a place in the global economy, it thusseems strange to thus affect the possibility of many students to pursue or even terminatetheir studies.

5.3. The use of amountsSince 2007-2008, tuition fees have been de-frozen and the amounts thus collected haveallowed universities to amass many additional millions per year, for a total of 226.3million dollars at the end of the university year in progress. Governmental financingshould follow the same trend, since the 2008-2009 budget, it announced an annualincrease of governmental investment of $200 million to attain 1 billion in 2011-2012(Finances Qubec, 2008). The government was well committed to this path, but it seemsto have changed caps since and has considerably slowed down its investment, to the


29/37


21

point where today there is missing $198 million annually to attain this target, namelynearly 20% of the total. Cumulated, the missing amounts represent a total of $358(Finances Qubec, 2011).

Table 5: Effect of the tuition fee hike of 2007 on the financing of universities

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Cumulatedamounts

FTE 192637 196716 198099 202003 206429 ---Increase in tuition fees ($) 99,9 199,8 299,7 399,6 499,5 1498,5Money collected via the

increase in fees (in millionsof dollars)

19,2 39,3 59,4 80,7 103,1 301,8

Amounts transferred toSFA (millions of dollars)

4,8 9,8 14,8 20,2 25,8 75,4

Net total invested inuniversities (in millions of

dollars)14,4 29,5 44,5 60,5 77,3 226,3

Despite these investments, the quality of teaching and research of universities has notgrown over the years. In its study on fixed assets funds, the Fdration qubcoise des professeurs et professeures duniversits (FQPPU) showed that the ministry waswithdrawing little by little from the funding of fixed assets. This situation forcesuniversity administrations to transfer a growing part of their of the financing destinedfor the operating fund towards the fixed assets fund in order to maintain the currentnetwork of fixed assets and increase available space. This is the case despite the fact thatin the last decade 50,000 FTE were added to the population already present in

universities: almost the equivalent of McGill University and the Universit de Montralcombined (FQPPU, 2010).

In the perspective where government financing was not up to expectations, we can to acertain extent, understand a part of the transfers made by the university administrationsthat aim to maintain the minimal quality of living for all the university community.However, in the last few years, we have witnessed stunning fiascos created byuniversity administrations that make the Federation doubt that the new amounts will bewell invested. Between the vertiginous salary increases of rectors, insane severance payfor managers and fringe benefits granted to upper administration, it is effectivelypossible to doubt that the amounts invested at a high price by students have an effect onthe quality of their courses or their research teams. All this without mentioning all thereal estate adventures that keep multiplying: Universit de Montral, Universit deSherbrooke and UQM.

It is thus interesting to focus on the reinvestment projected by universities. Rememberthat during the last hike, the government was supposed to put about ten times the


30/37


22

amount invested by students to ensure the continuity and improvement of theuniversity network. As we have seen, this was not done. This time, we have to admitthat students will assume the major part of the injection of additional resources in theuniversity network.

Figure 4: Distribution of additional resources between the different actors


Thus, during the first two years of the plan, students provided new available amountsfor universities. Governmental investments then accelerated, which reduced the studentpart to 53%, despite all this part representing still more than half the amounts. In theend, students provided 55% of the additional amounts. However, this is the onlycertain amounts, that is to say once the measure adopted, tuition fees will not likelygo down again, while we can have every reason to anticipate a reduction in thegovernmental effort, as was the case during the last increases. Moreover, thegovernment does not deem it necessary to compensate for the millions missing from thelast financing plan, thus abandoning a part of its commitment during the last hike. Wecan also doubt the effectiveness of the philanthropy measure, mainly for universitiessituated in the regions, since the latter attract fewer donations, in general, than theircounterparts in the major centers (FEUQ, 2007). These difficulties of regional,universities are, among other things, caused by the more limited number of graduates aswell as a less developed and less voluminous structure of the collection of donationsthan in universities in the major centers, thus affecting relative performance. Themodification made to the incentive program for the search for philanthropic sources

10%

65%

10% 15%

Montants cumuls2012-2013 et 2013-

2014Gouvernement

tudiants

Universits

Dons

32%

53%

6% 9%

Montants cumuls 2014-2015 2016-2017

Gouvernement

tudiants

Universits

Dons

28%

55%

7%10%

Montants cumuls surtoute la priode

Gouvernement

tudiants

Universits

Dons


31/37


23

should help universities by granting a greater amount per dollars amassed in donations,but it will not settle the source of the problem.

Overall, the plan presented by the government contains very few measures to ensure theadequate use of amounts, the measures it intends to put in place only apply to the

additional amounts that will be invested. Thus the transfer between operating fundsand fixed assets funds that is currently underway will not be settled, since nothing willbind university administrations to the amounts they already have. The new amountsmay very well be considerable, but they only represent one-tenth of what the totalbudget of universities will be at the end of the period, by excluding the amounts comingfrom the Canadian and Quebec research funds.


32/37


24

6. ConclusionThe measures of the 2011-2012 budget that we have just analyzed do not satisfy theFederation. In fact, the reinvestments in student financial assistance are entirelyassumed by students through the tuition fee hike. The government, by transferring a

higher portion of the revenues generated by the hike, hides in fact the impossibility ofStudent Financial Assistance in its current state, to absorb the increase in tuition fees.

While we commend the improvement of the Deferred Reimbursement Program, weissue serious reservations regarding the other aspects of the measures put in place forthe Student Financial Assistance Program. The maintenance of the maximum loan limit,which is a good thing in itself, only applies to students having access to loans andbursaries. The other students see the hike translated by greater indebtedness going up to$1,625 annually.

Recommendation n 1That the special allocation covering the increase in tuition fees be paid out in the form ofa bursary to all recipients without exception, and that it not lead to any increase inindebtedness.

Recommendation n 2That the maximum loan limit of student financial assistance not be increased.

Since indebtedness has direct effects on students, notably by dissuading some frompursuing their academic path into graduate studies or simply going to university, whichcan have the effect of modifying the sociological composition of classes, the FEUQ

reiterates the importance of actively reducing student indebtedness.

To this effect, we are disappointed to observe that the increase of the minimumthreshold of the parental contribution in the student financial assistance program doesnothing to improve the lot of students whose parents are between the poverty line andthe threshold taken into account by Student Financial Assistance. Students in thissituation are particularly vulnerable, as well as their families. The FEUQ thus reiteratesits demand to see this threshold increased to a decent level, surpassing the margin ofmaneuver of a family working on minimum wage.

Recommendation n 3That the exemption amounts for the maintenance of a family unit be established at$45,000 and subsequently indexed.

Still in regard to SFA, we observe that once again certain basic expenses of students areignored. It is not normal that access to Internet be, in our day, considered as a luxurygood that students only pay for their leisure. It is high time that Student Financial


33/37


25

Assistance enters the 21st century and recognizes the primordial importance of this toolin the academic success of students. In the same vein, it is more than time that publictransit expenses be adopted to the changes occurring in the last years.

Recommendation n 4

That Student Financial Assistance increase the amount of allowable expenses forrecipients of student financial assistance, notably for the improvement of the amountsfor living expenses and transportation expenses for students that do not have access topublic transit. Transport expenses for non-residents and Internet expenses must also beincluded in allowable expenses.

A worry is also raised regarding the absence of measures ensuring the indexation ofallowable expenses in the Student Financial Assistance Program in the 2011-2012budget. We also note that such a measure was included in the last decree concerningSFA for the progressive increase of the parental contribution threshold, but that no other

entries of the program has thus been amended, and the FEUQ fears that this situationindicates a neglect of financial assistance in coming years. Thus, the Federationreiterates the importance of introducing an automatic indexation mechanism of thefinancial assistance program, as well as the necessity of catching up to past non-indexation and the gap that has widened between the costs taken into account by theprogram and the real costs incurred by benefit recipients.

Recommendation n 5That the Ministry of Education Leisure and Sports introduce an automatic annualindexation mechanism of all allowable expenses in the calculation of Student FinancialAssistance. That this indexation be equivalent to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for theyear concerned

Recommendation n 6That the Ministry of Education, Leisure and Sports index in a retroactive manner theparameters of the student financial assistance program to fill the years of non-indexationand reflect the increase in the cost of living.

Recommendation n 7That the increase in allowable expenses and their annual indexation be translated by anincrease in bursaries and the number of beneficiaries having a right to a bursary, and

that it have no impact on the maximum limit of the current loan.

Finally, in regard to Student Financial Assistance, we would like to point out that apotion of the improvements named above could be financed from the transfers made bythe federal government out of the Canada Students Grant Program (CSGP). Annually, itis more than $70 million the government decides not to reinvest in the poorest students.Furthermore, we notice that a portion of the amounts transferred for financial assistance


34/37


26

through the tuition fee hike are not used by the government. Since this money isdestined for the least well off students, it is troubling to observe that a portion will bemisappropriated, and that no explanation is provided on this subject. This is why theFederation demands the complete investment of these two sources of money into theStudent Financial Assistance program.

Recommendation n 8That the amounts allocated to Quebec from the Canada Student Grants Program areused to improve the financial assistance program of Quebec, notably through themaintenance of the amount from grants to bursaries.

Recommendation n 9That the entirety of the amounts transferred for the Financial Assistance programthrough transfers on tuition fees serve the Financial Assistance program

The measures concerning the tuition fee hike have also not convinced the Federation.Once again, it will be students that will provide the major part of the new moneyserving to improve the system and no particular measure has been taken to ensure thejudicious use of the major part of the annual budget of universities, thus perpetuatingthe current state of things.

In brief, we are of the opinion that the measures put in place in the 2011-2012 Budgetwill result in the increase of student indebtedness and the families supporting them. Inthis regard, we would like to remind the Committee that student indebtedness, as wellas the possibility of indebtedness is an impediment to access to studies for the mostdisadvantaged members of the population, since they generally have a greater aversion

to indebtedness and risk than the rest of the population. It is also a risk in terms ofprofessional integration into the job market of young graduates and a ball and chain atthe beginning of their lives. This delays life projects such as access to property orstarting a family. Thus, we believe that the measures put forward by the government arenot responsible in the perspective of the concerted development of Quebec, and are inno way part of generational equity, contrary to what the presentation of certainmeasures would like us to believe.

In this perspective, the FEUQ demands that the government revise its tuition fee policyand actively work in the reduction of student indebtedness.

Recommendation n 10That the government of Quebec renounce the fee hikes announced in the 2011-2012Budget


35/37


27

Recommendation n 11That the government of Quebec actively work in reducing student indebtedness


36/37


28

7. BibliographyAFE. (2007). Enqute sur les conditions de vie des tudiants de la formation professionnelle ausecondaire, du collegial et de luniversit. Qubec : Aide financire aux tudes.

CCAFE. (2004). Laccessibilit financire la russite duprojet dtudes. Avis au ministre delducation. Qubec : Comit consultatif sur laccessibilit aux tudes.

CCAFE. (2008). Lencadrement des frais institutionnels obligatoires dans les universitiesqubcoises. Avis au ministre de lducation. Qubec : Comit consultatif surlaccessibilit aux tudes.

CNCS-FEUQ. (2007). Les sources et modes de financement des tudiants aux cycles suprieurs .Montral : Conseil national des cycles suprieurs Fdration tudiante universitaire duQubec

CNCS-FEUQ. (2008). Le Doctorat en question: Portrait statistique, formation, encadrement,qualit. Montral : Conseil national des cycles suprieurs Fdration tudianteuniversitaire du Qubec.

FCBEM. (2006). Accrotre laccs : linformation est-elle importante? Notes de recherchedu millnaire 3. Ottawa: Fondation canadienne des bourses dtudes du millnaire.

FCBEM. (2007). Le prix du savoir : laccs lducation et la situation financire des tudiants du Canada. 3edition. Montral : Fondation canadienne des bourses dtudes dumillnaire.

FCBEM. (2009). Y a-t-il un lien entre lemploi pendant les tudes et la russite scolaire? Note de recherche du millnaire 9. Montral : Fondation canadienne des boursesdtudes du millnaire.

FEUQ. (2007). Mmoire pour un nouveau pacte de lducation universitaire. Montral :Fdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec.

FEUQ (2008b). Facteurs autres que le cot des tudes influenant laccessibilit et la russitedtudes postsecondaires. Montral : Fdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec.

FEUQ. (2009). Vers une plus grande diversit doffre de programmes universitaire en rgion ?Montral : Fdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec

FEUQ (2010a). Sources et modes de financement des tudiants de premier cycle. Montral :Fdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec.


37/37

FEUQ. (2010b). Avis sur lencadrement des frais institutionnels obligatoires. Montral:Fdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec.

FEUQ. (2010c). Trousse sur laide financire aux tudes. Montral : Fdration tudianteuniversitaire du Qubec.

FEUQ. (2010d). Les frais de scolarit universitaires. Montral : Fdration tudianteuniversitaire du Qubec.

FEUQ. (2010e). Les frais de scolarit et luniversit Argumentaire contre les hausses de fraisde scolarit. Montral : Fdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec.

FQPPU. (2010). Le fonds des immobilisations des universits Une nouvelle cohrence trouver entre vocations, budgets et ralits. Montral : Fdration qubcoise des

professeures et professeurs duniversit

Finances Qubec. (2008) Vers un nouvel espace conomique. Qubec : Gouvernement duQubec

Finances Qubec. (2011). Un plan de financement des universits quitable et quilibr : Pourdonner au Qubec les moyens de ses ambitions. Qubec : Gouvernement du Qubec.

Ministre de lducation, du Loisir et du Sport. (2007). Les modes de financement del'ducation, rapport intgrateur faisant suite aux travaux d'experts chercheurs. Qubec:Ministre de lducation, du Loisir et du Sport.

Ministre de lducation, du Loisir et du Sport . (2011). Prvision de leffectif tudiant enequivalence au temps plein (EEETP) des universities qubcoises. Qubec : Ministre delducation du Loisir et du Sport.

Merani, S., Abdulla, S., Kwong, J. C., Rosella, L., Streiner, D. L., Johnson, I. L. et Dhalla,I. A. (2010). Increasing tuition fees in a country with two different models of medicaleducation.Medical Education , 44. p. 577586.

Usalcas, J. et Bowlby, G. (2006). Les tudiants sur le march du travail. Statistique

Canada. Consult en ligne le 28 juin 2011 au http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-004-x/2006001/9184-fra.htm#note4
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-004-x/2006001/9184-fra.htm#note4http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-004-x/2006001/9184-fra.htm#note4http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-004-x/2006001/9184-fra.htm#note4http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-004-x/2006001/9184-fra.htm#note4

Documents

En Analysis of 2011-2012 Budgetary Measures