Ministry of Training,
Colleges and Universities Statute Law Amendment Act,
2000, Bill 132, Mrs Cunningham / Loi de
2000 modifiant des lois en ce qui a trait au ministère de la
Formation et des Collèges et Universités,
projet de loi 132, Mme Cunningham
Canadian College of
Naturopathic Medicine
Mr David Schleich
Canadian Memorial
Chiropractic College
Dr Jean Moss
Tyndale
College
Dr Brian Stiller
Ontario Confederation
of University Faculty Associations
Dr Henry Jacek
Argosy Education
Group
Dr Michael Markovitz
Canadian Federation of
Students, Ontario
Ms Erin George
Ontario Graduate
Association
Mr Ian Boyko
Athabasca
University
Ms Frances Gunn
Canadian Union of
Public Employees, Ontario
Mr Brian O'Keefe
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Chair /
Président
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente
Mrs Julia Munro (York North / -Nord PC)
Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk PC)
Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain L)
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton PC)
Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North / -Nord PC)
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
Mr Dave Levac (Brant L)
Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina ND)
Mrs Julia Munro (York North / -Nord PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York ND)
Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill PC)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Anne Stokes
Staff /Personnel
Mr Larry Johnston, research officer, Research and Information
Services
The committee met at 1541 in committee room
1.
MINISTRY OF TRAINING, COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT DES LOIS
EN CE QUI A TRAIT AU MINISTÈRE DE LA FORMATION ET DES
COLLÈGES ET UNIVERSITÉS
Consideration of Bill 132, An
Act to enact the Post-secondary Education Choice and Excellence
Act, 2000, repeal the Degree Granting Act and change the title of
and make amendments to the Ministry of Colleges and Universities
Act / Projet de loi 132, Loi édictant la Loi de 2000
favorisant le choix et l'excellence au niveau post-secondaire,
abrogeant la Loi sur l'attribution de grades universitaires et
modifiant le titre et le texte de la Loi sur le ministère
des Collèges et Universités.
CANADIAN COLLEGE OF NATUROPATHIC MEDICINE
The Chair (Mr Steve
Gilchrist): Good afternoon. I call the committee to
order for the purpose of further hearings on Bill 132.
Our first presentation this
afternoon will be from the Canadian College of Naturopathic
Medicine. I invite them up to the witness table. Good afternoon;
welcome to the committee.
Mr David
Schleich: My name is David Schleich. I'm the president
of the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine here in Toronto.
You have before you on your desks our presentation, and I will be
going through about one half of that in the allocated time.
The Canadian College of
Naturopathic Medicine is a non-profit, charitable private
educational institution which prepares graduates for entry to
practise as naturopathic doctors in regulated and also in
non-regulated provinces and states in North America. CCNM, which
is the acronym for our school, supports Bill 132 and sees it as a
positive and timely improvement to the current higher education
system in Ontario.
As a complement to
conventional medicine, naturopathic medicine's increasing
integration in health care merits professional recognition in
Ontario, which this legislation would make possible.
Historically, the affiliation route and the ministerial consent
route have proven to be virtual cul-de-sacs for our school and
our profession in its goal to have a professional education
credential with international acceptance and currency. Our goal
is to have a professional degree. We do not seek provincial
funding for our school now or in the future.
With respect to CCNM, Bill
132 holds timely benefits for students, graduates and ultimately
the Canadian public. As complementary and alternative health care
increases in popularity, more university graduates are choosing
to enter the natural medicine profession. Enrolment at our
school, which offers a four-year full-time professional program
leading to a doctor of naturopathic medicine diploma, has
dramatically increased over the past several years. Currently
there are over 500 full-time graduate students studying with
us.
While accredited naturopathic
colleges in the United States are able to grant degrees, CCNM,
also accredited by the US Department of Education's Council on
Naturopathic Medical Education currently can only issue diplomas
to graduates because of the restrictive framework of the Degree
Granting Act here in Ontario and the virtual monopoly the public
sector universities have on the degree credential. This
inconsistency confuses the general public and other primary
health care professionals who increasingly work closely with
naturopathic doctors, and it also undermines the Canadian
naturopathic profession both nationally and internationally.
Moreover, our college can
meet and exceed the criteria normally considered by the minister
when considering degree-granting rights and privileges for
non-publicly supported institutions.
Bill 132 will begin to
address these inconsistencies, support the development of the
naturopathic profession and recognize the professional expertise
graduates achieve through their rigorous professional program. An
understandable, portable and transferable credential in the form
of a professional degree would not only be an appropriate
culmination of a rigorous educational program, which graduates of
other professional programs enjoy at the moment, but is also
appropriate to the currency of the profession in Canada, as
witnessed, for example, by the federal government last year in
the establishment of the office of natural health products, whose
director general is a graduate of our school. As well, the
enabling legislation in other Canadian provinces, such as Alberta and British Columbia
contemplates a fair playing field for naturopathic doctors'
credentials.
What we're looking for: we
want to become a degree-granting institution to facilitate the
recognition of the naturopathic profession in Canada and abroad.
We seek approval to offer a professional degree as a credential
because of its importance as a signal of quality to the primary
health care community and to the university community in Canada.
This will be a unique professional degree. We do not seek a
secular degree. We are not seeking government funding for capital
or operations now or in the future. With a degree-granting
credential we will be able to link our institution with other
Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada organizations
across North America, finally making it possible for our students
to transfer their education credentials to other institutions for
further advanced study.
I would ask the committee to
take note that our tuition is the lowest in North America and in
fact we are comparable to the current tuition costs for medical
schools in this province. Our rate-of-tuition increases in the
last five years have been lower by a margin of 50% compared to
public sector tuition increases. Our faculty are highly
specialized and it's highly unlikely that we would have any
impact on other post-secondary institutions in terms of
recruitment.
I'd like to articulate for a
few moments our concerns regarding Bill 132, those that we do
have, and to iterate how supportive we are of the
legislation.
First, we're concerned that
the Quality Assessment Board not be overly dominated by current
public sector university personnel whose understanding of
graduate medical education or graduate professional education may
be dismissive of an institution not in the apparent mainstream
and with which they are not familiar. In fact, the Canadian
College of Naturopathic Medicine's curriculum and delivery are
entirely in keeping with the dominant epistemology of
professional programs housed in research universities. We want to
offer a unique professional degree which doesn't fall
conveniently under the other provisions of the revised act.
Another concern is that,
historically, the Degree Granting Act discriminates in favour of
foreign institutions over institutions whose home is Ontario. The
new act keeps this unfair process intact in some ways because it
gives only temporary consent to colleges such as ours since we
are based in Ontario. We have invested heavily in our campus,
equipment, human resources and programs over the past 22 years.
We want to expand all of these even further to meet the rapidly
growing need, not only here in Ontario but across Canada. We need
a stable and secure credential foundation to achieve this. We
employ more than 125 people full-time, and the multiplier effect
of our 500 graduate students to the local and Ontario economies
is not insignificant. Thus, we would suggest that the act provide
for well-established, non-profit private institutions to be
accorded degree-granting status not unlike current Ontario
universities. The Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine
welcomes the rigour of a periodic and thorough Quality Assessment
Board review and accreditation process.
Ladies and gentlemen, what
follows in our submission are statistics which I don't think I
need to rehearse here, information about the academic
requirements of our program, our recent accreditation process
that we went through, which took 60 months and many thousands of
dollars, and the historical overview not only of our school but
of the profession which we serve.
We are technically
incorporated under the Ontario Corporations Act and our school is
the educational arm of the shareholder group within that act. I
iterate that we are non-profit.
The final section of our
submission is a description for those of you not familiar with
naturopathic medicine about what it is that constitutes the core
of our professional curriculum.
Through Bill 132, the
Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine as a degree-granting
institution will be able to facilitate finally, after generations
of not having been able to do so, and to ensure that only
qualified professionals hold a meaningful credential that is
understood by jurisdictions outside of Ontario and by our
colleagues in other post-secondary institutions in Ontario and
other primary health care professionals.
1550
We have pursued the
affiliation route without success. Bill 132 changes all of that
and we are excited by the possibilities and in strong support of
the legislation. Thank you very kindly.
The Chair:
Thank you very much. That does leave us time for questions, about
three minutes. We'll start with the Liberals this time.
Mr Dave Levac
(Brant): Mr Schleich, thank you very much for your
presentation. Obviously, just by perusing the information, I
would not doubt that you have a wonderful institution and what
you provide for your students is already quite exceptional. A
quick question, and then maybe another one. The quick question
is, you have outlined some concerns regarding the bill. If those
concerns are not addressed, will you still support the bill?
Mr Schleich:
Yes. We are in support of the bill be-cause we believe it levels
the playing field and makes it more fair. We hope that in any
subsequent amendments that might come from this process there
would be other opportunities for us to achieve the degree
credential.
Mr Levac:
The way it works, if the amendments aren't coming at this
committee level when we deal with the bill, you'll have to wait
to change legislation at a later date. So your lobbying is going
to require some arm-twisting of people to put in some amendments
to make sure that those concerns are addressed. That could be
anyone from any side.
The second question evolves
around a part of the bill that hasn't been addressed today.
There's a part of the bill that looks at privatization and
there's a possibility that a lot of the bills that this
government's put forward have these kind of double-edged swords:
if you want the nice
piece, you've got to take the other piece that might not be so
palatable. Have you got a judgment or an opinion on the other
piece of the legislation that allows for-profit institutions to
enter into the province?
Mr Schleich:
Our considered judgment, and this is derived from conversations
with our board of governors and our other stakeholders, is that
diversification becomes more possible in the higher education
sector in Ontario through this bill, and that, in the long term,
is desirable.
If for-profit institutions-we
are not one, so I'm speaking from the perspective of a non-profit
institution-can meet rigorous criteria having to do not only with
curriculum and learning outcomes but also standards that are
applied in the delivery of programs, and also if the private
institutions are not seen to be excessively expensive in terms of
access, and if along with those two factors there's an
opportunity for students to access student loans-I know there are
conversations occurring federally and provincially about such
instruments as income-contingent repayment systems and so on-if
these are in place, then the private university component in the
higher education sector, with the resulting diversification, can
enhance post-secondary education in Ontario in our view.
The Chair:
Thank you very much Mr Schleich, for becoming before us this
afternoon and starting off our hearings. We appreciate it.
CANADIAN MEMORIAL CHIROPRACTIC COLLEGE
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from the Canadian Memorial
Chiropractic College.
Good afternoon, and welcome
to the committee.
Dr Jean
Moss: Good afternoon, everybody. I'm Dr Jean Moss, the
president of the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College. I'd like
to introduce my colleague, Dr Silvano Mior, who is dean of
graduate studies and research.
On behalf of the college, I
thank you for the opportunity to make a presentation to your
committee on Bill 132. I have brought with me today a small
information package which highlights our institution and our
programs. A copy of my presentation has been included in the
materials.
Bill 132 represents the
culmination of a substantive and, in our view, comprehensive
consultation process. We believe that meaningful public input
into the public policy development process is essential to good
government. The government's and the minister's efforts to reach
out and seek the feedback of a wide variety of stakeholders
should not go unnoticed. As many of you are aware, the Canadian
Memorial Chiropractic College has a strong tradition of
participating in the public policy development process.
This initiative was no
exception. We submitted a paper in response to the government's
consultation document and we were pleased to participate in one
of their several round-table discussions. We believe that we have
had sufficient opportunity to be heard.
Suspecting that your day has
been both interesting yet long, I will be brief and specific in
my remarks. I particularly want to focus my comments on the newly
proposed quality assessment board.
We are pleased to see that
Bill 132 creates the legislative authority for the establishment
of an arm's-length quality assessment board, along with certain
mandated review requirements. We expect that the applications
flowing through the QAB and its review process should create many
interesting and exciting opportunities for Ontario's
post-secondary students.
The key to that process, we
believe, lies in the integrity, veracity and credibility of the
rules and the measures adopted to review these new opportunities.
We believe that much of the success of the new degree-granting
portion of Bill 132 will rest heavily upon the regulation-making
authority found in section 13. We believe that it is important
that the rules regarding the application process be governed by
regulation. This better ensures that as review standards improve
or the quality assessment board identifies a gap, these standards
can be easily amended.
The college, affectionately
known as CMCC, is a unique institution. It was established in
1945. It is fully accredited by the Council of Chiropractic
Education of Canada, which is recognized internationally,
particularly with the Council of Chiropractic Education in the
United States, which is in turn accredited by the United States
Department of Education.
We have a limited enrollment.
We are a self-supporting, professional educational institution
which is significantly funded by the chiropractic profession
across Canada. We receive no direct government funding and we
rely on membership, tuition, and donations for support. We are a
registered charity.
CMCC has achieved a
seven-year accreditation, which is the highest level possible for
chiropractic colleges in North America. At present, Canadian
accrediting standards are higher than those in the United States,
despite the fact that there are 17 chiropractic colleges in the
United States. We have consistently chosen to set our own
standards in excess of those required by our accrediting body. We
believe in setting the bar high and aiming even higher. As such,
we are a standards leader as well as an accreditation and quality
leader. The standards and procedures by which we operate provide,
we believe, a road map to quality and success. We are very proud
of the rigour to which we hold ourselves accountable and believe
that our standards have served the community well.
We have 615 students, 91% of
whom have an undergraduate degree prior to admission. Seven per
cent of our current first-year class has a graduate-level degree.
We have graduated over 4,600 graduates since 1945; 49% of those
are practicing in Ontario.
We employ approximately 180
faculty and staff and have an operating budget of $10.5 million.
We have no direct
government support, as we have already said, and we have managed
to remain the most cost-effective chiropractic college in North
America. As the naturopathic college has just said, our tuition
is in the same range as tuition at a medical school today. We
consider this a remarkable achievement while we have maintained
the highest-quality standards and achieved the maximum
accreditation award.
Not only do we have
high-quality standards but also we continue to assess those
standards. We cannot express strongly enough how important it
will be for the province to commit to a rigorous QAB
accreditation process. If the province is going to succeed, it
too will need to be a leader in the accreditation process by
setting high provincial standards.
I'd like to translate the
term "accreditation" into its core components as it relates to
CMCC. I believe that in doing so we may demonstrate some
practices and objectives that can be transferred to the QAB
accreditation process.
The main principles of
achieving accreditation are to prove that the institution is
financially viable, its programs are of sufficient quality, that
the institution sets goals and then assesses itself against these
goals, that the institution goes through a self-study process,
identifies its strengths and its weaknesses and then establishes
strategies to improve on the areas of weakness. Finally, the
accrediting body completes an on-site visitation to verify that
the institution is meeting the accreditation standards and is
doing everything that we say it is doing.
1600
It's extensive and it's
expensive. However, we feel it's important that the QAB establish
procedures to confirm and accept existing accreditation processes
to ensure that institutions are properly accredited and don't
have to undergo a further process that is financially and
administratively cumbersome and unnecessary. In addition, the
regulations should allow for responsiveness to increased quality
standards as standards increase. The regulatory processes must be
able to respond and must be able to set the bar higher.
We measure our success in a
number of different ways. Our graduates consistently outperform
other graduates on the Canadian licensing examinations, and last
year we were very proud to have 100% of our graduates who took
the exam pass. Our graduates have a very high employment rate,
with 91% of them gaining employment in their professional field
six months after graduation. We also have an extremely low
default rate on OSAP loans at 0.9%. Compare that to 20% in the
college sector and 8% in general in the university sector. We
attribute these favourable outcomes to the quality of our
students, our faculty, our staff and our academic program. We
think it is a remarkable achievement, given that we offer our
education within the private sector.
Ontario is in a wonderful
position to learn from the experiences of others. We can continue
to have institutions of the highest quality, but the bar must be
set high from the outset. This bill provides the enabling
framework to safeguard high quality standards and to establish
the statutory and regulatory means to assess and confirm programs
of suitable quality worthy of degree-granting status in the
province.
In closing, we would like to
say that we support the government's intention to provide more
opportunities for Ontarians to seek degrees in a wider variety of
programs. We further support its commitment to maintain the
reputation and value of an Ontario-earned degree. We believe
strongly that there must be an effective, efficient and rigorous
accreditation process for any new degree program to ensure that
there is no erosion of this reputation. Ontario's future
post-secondary students deserve no less.
We would be very pleased to
have you visit CMCC for a tour of our facilities and have you
meet with our staff and faculty and the next generation of
chiropractors of Canada. We thank you for this opportunity and
would be pleased to respond to any of your questions.
The Chair:
That leaves us time for about two and a half or three minute for
questions. This time it will be to the NDP.
Ms Frances Lankin
(Beaches-East York): Perhaps with that shortage of time,
I'll just make a comment, Jean, and perhaps to David, who
presented as well. You know throughout the years I've been
extremely supportive of your professions and your colleges. I
think there hasn't been an initiative that you've brought forward
that I haven't been supportive of. On this one, sorry. I guess
the tide had to end.
I believe very strongly that
the goal of both the chiropractic and naturopathic colleges to
gain degree-granting status is one that should be supported, and
there are methods that have been available and could have been
promoted by government to help you with that. I think the block
that you've run into in particular in affiliation and in
discussions with the universities is because of, I hate to say
it, the predominance of medical doctors in the health sciences
and their view of chiropractic and naturopathic, and a monopoly
point of view. I think it takes political will to overcome
that.
I believe some of the
cautions you raise around the accreditation process and who will
be making those decisions and whether you'll be put through
another process are very important ones. I believe the concerns
that David raised with respect to, again, whether there will be a
predominance of the existing university represented on those
decision-making bodies, and how the traditional blocks will play
themselves out in the future are very important, and they're not
addressed in this bill.
If I may say, on the other
whole section of the bill, if this was just about expanding
degree-granting opportunities, I'd be 100% with you. But the
other section of the bill, which allows the invasion of foreign
for-profit universities in our sector-I heard David make a lot of
cautionary statements about if, if, if, then it's OK. None of
those ifs are contained within this legislation. I believe that
we see the potential for a major assault on our publicly funded
post-secondary education system and that the answer to the problems you have had, which
are very real problems and I'm very supportive of what you're
trying to do-it's really unfortunate to see that they're being
addressed through a bill that has such other odious aspects to
it.
I find myself in the position
of voting against this piece of legislation and I want to let you
know that. But I believe that the work you are trying to do and
what you're trying to accomplish is worthy and I continue to be
supportive of that.
The Chair:
That does exhaust our time, but thank you very much, Dr Moss and
Dr Mior, for coming before us here today.
TYNDALE COLLEGE
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from Tyndale College. Good
afternoon and welcome to the committee.
Dr Brian
Stiller: My name is Brian Stiller. I have presented a
brief brief. First, let me say that we are in support of the
legislation.
Just a background to who we
are: we began in 1894 down in Toronto, the amalgam of the
interests of three churches. Founded originally as Toronto Bible
College, it merged with the school of London and eventually
migrated north and developed a seminary and changed the name in
1998. We have an undergraduate school, the college, which is the
one that we're speaking about specifically here today, and the
seminary, Tyndale Seminary, which is currently the largest
Christian seminary in Canada and the 12th largest in North
America.
The college is now in
transition towards becoming a university college offering a range
of majors in arts and sciences, as well as in various
professional areas. The reason for this transition is that the
seminary has become the primary place of preparing individuals
for church-related vocations. The model of education which the
board of governors has approved in part-this is for the college
side-comes from other schools, such as Trinity Western in British
Columbia, King's University College and Nazarene University
College in Alberta, Redeemer University College here in Ontario,
and Atlantic Baptist University in Moncton.
Tyndale is a diverse
institution with over 45 different denominations and 24 different
ethnic backgrounds represented within its community. The college
enrolls over 425 students and the college and seminary together
have some 1,200 students. The constituency which looks to Tyndale
for educational programs of one sort or another in Ontario is
about 15% of the population. We currently have 12 full-time
professors at the college. In the overall college and seminary,
we have some 62 professors and more than 80% of those have earned
doctoral degrees. Although the college has offered courses in the
liberal arts all during its history, this is now becoming a much
greater emphasis as it moves towards becoming a university
college.
In our view, three reasons
why this legislation is needed: First of all, it's a matter of
choice. We believe this legislation will allow for a greater
educational choice for Ontarians. At the present time, private
university colleges with a Christian ethos are allowed to offer
degrees in several other provinces. Until recently, Ontario
residents who wished this form of education had to go outside
Ontario in order to access it. This legislation will allow
Ontarians to choose such educational offerings within their own
province.
The recent decision to allow
Redeemer University College to offer the BA and BSc degrees is an
important development. Now is the time to allow other such
institutions to provide this educational offering for Ontario
students. Tyndale, with its strategic location in Toronto, is
well-placed to be the college of choice for a good number of
students seeking such an educational experience.
1610
This legislation strikes a
good balance between openness to innovation, on the one hand, and
the understandable desire to ensure quality and world-class
education. We believe it is important that educational offerings
be held up to scrutiny so that what happens here in Ontario
matches the finest of universities worldwide and continues to
uphold the high level of education currently being offered by our
public universities.
Universities such as York and
Redeemer currently accept transfer credit from Tyndale and we are
now in discussion with the University of Toronto about this issue
as well. Our faculty hold earned doctorates from such
institutions as York University, University of Toronto, Queen's
University and, overseas, Aberdeen University. Our long-term
desire is to become a member of the AUCC.
The second reason this
legislation is needed is a recognition of the public benefits
offered by private colleges. We believe this legislation is
important because it provides a mechanism by which the government
and the public can recognize and affirm the important public
service that faith-based institutions like ours can provide.
Historically in Canada many of the universities which exist today
were founded by Christian churches and individuals, and many of
these links continue to this day. Faith and higher education have
always been intertwined.
As a private, not-for-profit
Christian college, we seek to provide education to those who
desire the kind of educational experience we offer as a public
service at no cost to the taxpayers of Ontario. Ontario, in
allowing this development to take place, is reflecting what other
jurisdictions in North America are doing. Keeping Ontario
students in Ontario is a benefit to the province, especially when
the education received is at no expense to the taxpayer. Everyone
benefits when greater choice exists.
Number three: it's a matter
of fairness. We believe this legislation is important because it
allows for colleges to offer degrees that accurately reflect the
true nature of the content of their degree programs. We agree
with the proposed
legislation that it is fair to permit institutions that offer
traditional arts and sciences degrees at the university level to
be allowed to name those degrees in such a way as to reflect
their content. The same is true for various types of professional
degree designations. We believe that allowing colleges that match
the QAB's definition of quality to call degrees by their true
names is good for students and the public and fulfills the need
for Ontario communities to operate within an educational
environment of fairness.
There are three
recommendations. We suggest that the QAB include at least one
person from the not-for-profit educational community; that the
QAB allow schools that are in process to be fast-tracked; that
the QAB focus its attention more on being an advisory body to the
minister rather than being a full accrediting agency.
That is our presentation.
Attached is a profile which will give you some further
information about the nature of our school.
The Chair:
Thank you very much. That affords us about four minutes for
questioning. This time it will be with the government.
Mrs Tina R. Molinari
(Thornhill): Thank you very much for your presentation.
Some of the comments you've made in your presentation have been
things we've been hearing in the consultations we have held
across the province. We've met with various groups in small and
large group settings, and a lot of what you're saying here is
consistent with what we've been hearing across the province. I
appreciate your taking the time to come and share your views with
us as well.
The recommendations you've
made are also helpful. This is a process we go through, taking
the recommendations that come forth, and in moving up to final
approval of the bill, all of these consultations will definitely
be taken into consideration.
I want to assure you that the
quality assessment board is in fact an advisory board; that is,
it will advise the minister on which institutions will be given
the authority to grant university degrees and those that will be
given the authority to grant applied degrees within the college.
That's also something we've heard.
The quality assessment board
will also call upon expert panels to ensure that those being
considered meet the criteria and the high quality that we as a
ministry and as a government want to ensure, that we offer the
best for all the students.
As you said in your
presentation, this is about choice and offering choice and
options to students. We have heard of a number of situations
where students have had to leave Ontario, as you indicated in
your presentation. We want to keep our students here in Ontario
and this is one way of doing it.
There will be no cost to
the taxpayer in that the institutions will not receive any public
money. One of your comments is that it doesn't cost taxpayers.
But the students will have access to the Ontario student
assistance program once the institution is in place for a period
of time and we are assured that the institution will be credible
and continue to offer programs for the students.
I appreciate all the
comments you've made. They will certainly be taken into
consideration with the rest of the presentations we hear
today.
The Chair:
Any other questions from the government? Seeing none, thank you
very much for taking the time, Dr Stiller.
ONTARIO CONFEDERATION OF UNIVERSITY FACULTY
ASSOCIATIONS
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from the Ontario Confederation of
University Faculty Associations. Good afternoon and welcome to
the committee.
Dr Henry
Jacek: Good afternoon, Mr Chair, and members of the
committee. My name is Dr Henry Jacek. I'm president of OCUFA and
I'm also a professor of political science at McMaster University
in Hamilton. I am joined here today by Henry Mandelbaum, my
executive director, and Mark Rosenfeld, who is the director of
government relations.
The Ontario Confederation
of University Faculty Associations represents approximately
11,000 professors and academic librarians in Ontario's 17
universities and affiliated university colleges. We are pleased
to present a brief to the standing committee today. The brief has
been circulated. Appended to that brief is a report on private
universities. This report is a detailed and, we believe, thorough
study of some of the implications, unfortunately negative
implications, of having an extensive operating private university
system in Ontario.
As I think all the
committee members are aware, we have strong reservations about
private universities in Ontario. We are quite worried that Bill
132 does not expand real major choice for students, particularly
our young people, nor does it, we think, promote general overall
excellence in Ontario's university system.
Private universities, we
believe, may very well lead to a two-tier system. Those who can
afford to attend a private institution may do so, possibly
circumventing the current stringent entrance requirements to
Ontario's public universities. We really don't think the people
of Ontario want a system where students are allowed to buy their
way into university degrees. We believe they want a system where
people have to meet stringent standards to attain those degrees.
Qualified students who do not have the resources to attend a
private university will have to depend on the current public
system, which is already faced with enormous demand pressures
from students and inadequate resources to meet that demand.
OCUFA, therefore, urges the
committee to recommend that Bill 132 be withdrawn and studied
further. Private, for-profit universities especially will not add
to the quality, we believe, of post-secondary education in
Ontario, nor will they add in any meaningful way to the capacity
of the post-secondary community to meet enrolment demand
increase. Nor is there doubt that public resources will in fact
be expended on these private, for-profit institutions. These institutions will not
provide the broad scope of programs we need in Ontario-such as in
the arts, sciences, humanities and professions-that are demanded
by an increasing number of students, particularly our young
learners. They will particularly ignore that group of people. It
is therefore OCUFA's contention that the legislation does not
promote greater major opportunities for students.
However, if we accept the
role of private universities, which this legislation does, we
believe this legislation is still flawed and needs to be amended.
We have three specific objections to this bill in its current
form, and our brief suggests amendments to that bill.
Of the first three major
suggestions, our concern is the guarantee of public
accountability or transparency within the legislation. We believe
there are several gaps in the accountability provisions. The
legislation does not provide for public debate on the creation of
new universities. Any authorization of a new university, in our
view, should be through an act of the Legislature in order that
public debate can take place and the public interest can be
protected. Authorization by ministerial consent does not provide
these same assurances and safeguards and careful
consideration.
There is nothing in the
legislation that states that the Post-secondary Education Quality
Assessment Board's decision and reasoning will be made public or
that the public will have access to the documentation supporting
the application. It is imperative, in our view, that any
recommendation made by the board be transparent and open to
public review. I'm sure you've heard this before, particularly
from the Council of Ontario Universities.
1620
The proposed legislation
allows the minister to make an exception to the restriction that
colleges only grant applied degrees. The minister has the power
to allow colleges to become universities. Essentially, these
subsections of the legislation could be used to create a US-style
system of junior colleges granting associate degrees. If this is
the intention of the government, then we believe it should be the
subject of a thorough public debate rather than allowing this
change to happen incrementally through regulatory provisions not
subject to public review or discussion. We would also point out
here that there are very serious financial implications for this
type of gradual descent into an American-style junior college
system, and those financial implications need to be really
carefully looked at.
Regulations can be made,
according to this legislation, prescribing procedures for the
Post-secondary Education Quality Assessment Board's review of
applications, as well as prescribing policies and principles that
the board must take into consideration in establishing criteria
in reviewing applications. Such regulations could severely
restrict the independence of the board, be in conflict with the
high education standards now recognized in Ontario, and create a
highly irregular system of quality control for higher education
in the province. For example, we could have one standard for
public universities, another for private universities, still
another for public colleges, and yet another one for public
colleges transformed into universities. Let me emphasize: the
educational standards that will be used by the Post-secondary
Education Quality Assessment Board should be consistent and
uniform in content and consistently applied to all institutions.
Performance standards should be the same for all these
institutions, not allowing lower standards for for-profit
organizations.
In this act, the minister
is provided with the power to appoint inspectors for the purpose
of determining whether it is appropriate to change, suspend or
revoke a consent or to determine if an institution has complied
with the act. The real question here is whether there will be
appropriate funding for these inspectors. Will enough inspectors
be hired? Will they be given the resources to check that quality
standards are being upheld in all institutions? This is always a
worry in government, where there is a temptation to cut
expenditures and inspection procedures. Therefore, a provision
guaranteeing adequate resources for enforcement should be
included in this legislation.
Our second of the three
concerns is the quality of education provided by new
degree-granting institutions. This quality of education must be
guaranteed.
The proposed legislation
specifies the criteria for reviewing applications by the
assessment board and that they must be in accordance with
educational standards recognized in Ontario and elsewhere. Such
standards, however, are not spelled out in the legislation and
may be subject to very wide interpretation. Moreover, the next
clause in the bill specifies that the assessment criteria must
comply with policy directions set by the minister. Cases could
arise where the policy directions set by the minister conflict
with recognized educational standards in Ontario. It would be
better if the standards that will apply were delineated in detail
now and applied fairly to all organizations. It seems crucial
that a level playing field of quality standards is necessary, and
they are not now contained in this bill.
Our third and final concern
is that the legislation must guarantee that public funds not flow
in any way, directly or indirectly, to for-profit organizations,
especially foreign profit-making corporations.
No explicit exclusions in
the legislation prevent this from happening. They will be able to
benefit from tax deductions, from tax credits for students'
tuition and non-tuition educational costs. They will be able to
qualify for research funding, tax credits for research activities
and the use of publicly funded infrastructure such as libraries,
especially our overused and under-resourced university libraries.
Moreover, the government has already pointed out that they will
allow the provision for students who attend private universities
to access OSAP funding. OSAP funding is a direct public subsidy
of these institutions. The money will simply be handed to the
students, who will in turn hand it right over to the private
universities. The result will be less OSAP money for our students
enrolled in our already existing universities such as Queen's,
Toronto, Guelph, Waterloo and McMaster.
We would also note our concerns regarding this
legislation's implications under NAFTA and the general agreement
on trade in services. The move to open up the higher education
market in Ontario will allow NAFTA and GATS rules to apply, and
WTO rules as well. There is a potential for these regulations to
override many of the powers assigned to the Lieutenant Governor
in Council and the minister within the legislation. Similarly,
under NAFTA, once a publicly provided service is also provided on
a private, commercial basis, all the national treatment and
investment provisions apply. The system will lose its protection.
In effect, all the benefits and programs provided to Ontario's
public universities would have to be extended to private
providers, and they would have a legal claim to do so. As a
result, even if the government claims that private universities
would be ineligible for student assistance or research grants,
NAFTA provisions and the provisions of the other trade
agreements, including those now evolving, will override this
legislation.
As such, we would recommend
that the minister undertake to review the outlined concerns over
these trade agreements and raise them with the Minister for
International Trade at the earliest opportunity to ensure that
Canada can maintain existing protection, as it has wanted to do
in its previous treaties, for its educational standards and
practices.
I would like to conclude
our presentation by pointing out that there is a solution not
contained in this legislation to ensure access and opportunity to
students, and excellence in our university system. That solution
is a rejuvenation, a reinvestment in Ontario's colleges and
universities.
All members are aware that
changes in population demographics, participation rates and
secondary school reform will result in an increased demand for
university education of approximately 90,000 students by the end
of this decade. With the increased demand comes the need to
expand the faculty in our public universities. Estimates show
that we will need thousands of new faculty over the next 10 years
in order to replace the ones now leaving the system to take
account of the new students coming in and to deal with the
inefficient ratios we now have. These two tremendous policy
challenges of student numbers and the faculty shortage face the
government. This bill really dodges that issue and will not in
any way provide a solution, or even a partial solution, to this
issue and these two problems.
To meet the needs of future
enrolment, expand research capacity and improve the quality of
the educational experience, the government of Ontario should
commit to increase annual funding to universities by $500 million
over the next three years.
Let us be clear: if Bill
132 is passed, even with the amendments we propose, not one new
space in a publicly supported university will be created and not
one new faculty member will be hired. Bill 132 will therefore
fail to meet the real needs of students and the province. Unless
major reinvestments are made to our current universities, the
future economic well-being of Ontario is at serious risk, and
with it the quality of life in Ontario will decline.
This is the conclusion of
my remarks. I would like to thank the members for listening
patiently to those remarks. I welcome any questions or comments
any member of the committee may have. Thank you.
The Chair:
Thank you. Actually, you've timed it perfectly. You have used
your allotted time, but I do appreciate the detail in your brief
and your taking the time to come before us here today.
ARGOSY EDUCATION GROUP
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from the Argosy Education Group.
Good afternoon and welcome to the committee.
Dr Michael
Markovitz: Good afternoon, Mr Chairman and members of
the committee. My name is Michael Markovitz. I'm the chairman and
founder of Argosy Education Group. With me is Mr Clarke Merritt,
my associate.
We have delivered to you
prior to today a brief which presents our views and background
with respect to Bill 132, and we have delivered to you the most
recent annual report of Argosy Education Group, which goes into
considerable detail with respect to our finances, our plans, our
history and the manner in which we operate.
1630
Briefly, Argosy Education
Group was established in 1975 and is now a 25-year-old
institution that operates 17 different schools and colleges
across the United States. We have three campuses of what is the
PrimeTech Institute here in the city of Toronto.
Our schools generally offer
graduate-level education. We are variously authorized in nine
different states to award bachelor's degrees, master's degrees
and doctoral degrees. We award bachelor's degrees in business and
in education. We award master's degrees in education, psychology
and business, and doctoral degrees as well, mostly in applied
clinical psychology, although we award the EdD degree as well as
the DBA, which is a doctor of business administration. In
addition, we operate a junior college in the state of Minnesota
where we offer applied programs in the allied health sciences
such as ultrasound technology, veterinary assisting and so
forth.
All of our programs are
accredited by the appropriate regional accrediting bodies that
would be applicable in the United States. They are accredited
either by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools,
which is a major accrediting body recognized by the Secretary of
Education, or by SACS, the Southern Association of Colleges and
Schools. Our professional schools are additionally accredited by
the American Psychological Association and, for the two law
schools with which we are involved, one is currently accredited
by the American Bar Association and the second is approved in the
state of Georgia and is in the process of working toward
receiving accreditation from the American Bar Association.
I say this to demonstrate to you that Argosy and
the schools programs which it operates are intellectually serious
endeavours. We are and have been ever since the beginning of our
company wanting to submit our programs to the scrutiny of our
peers and to have the quality and content of our academic
programs, as well as the preparation, integrity and background of
our faculty, subject to scrutiny by their peers. As the speaker
who preceded me commented, all the schools should be judged by
the same criteria and standards. We absolutely endorse that idea
and want absolutely to assure anyone and everyone that Argosy and
its programs are intellectually serious and want to be judged in
that vein.
There are several matters,
though, that I want to discuss, and they particularly have to do
with what our intention is in the province of Ontario should Bill
132 be enacted into law. It is not our intention to go into
competition with the public sector and it is not our intention to
duplicate programs that already exist and are offered by many of
the very fine and excellent institutions that exist here. Rather,
the types of programs that Argosy wishes to offer are programs
which currently do not exist in Ontario.
Specifically, there is the
applied clinical psychology doctoral degree, the PsyD, doctor of
psychology degree, which we pioneered 25 years ago and which is
now received by more than 50% of all students in the United
States working toward a doctoral degree in clinical psychology.
It is a practitioner-oriented degree rather than a research- and
scholarship-oriented degree, and there are currently no
opportunities in Ontario for students to pursue this type of
education. In fact, at our 11 campuses throughout the United
States we have a number of students from Ontario who have come
specifically to our programs to receive the education that is not
available here. Many of them have returned to the province of
Ontario, and I believe that in recent years the president of the
Ontario Psychological Association may have been a graduate of one
of our schools.
In addition to that, we
would like to offer programs in information technology that don't
exist here: an applied program called bachelor of information
technology, BIT, and at the master's level the MIT, master's
degree in information technology. These are applied
practitioner-oriented degrees that prepare their holders to work
at serious managerial and technical jobs in an area and industry
that everyone acknowledges is growing at a very rapid pace and
for which current educational capacity has not been sufficient,
not here in Ontario, not in the United States and not anywhere.
The growth of jobs has far outpaced the ability of all the
educational institutions to keep up with it.
With respect to offering
degrees in information technology, note that private schools,
such as Argosy, are able to invest in equipment and upgrades to
technology at a more rapid pace than is available to the public
sector. We, as a publicly traded company on the NASDAQ, have
access to adequate funding and capital to buy the equipment
that's necessary to train students to be prepared for jobs that
are available today.
With respect to the quality
assessment board, I would like to echo what other speakers have
said, that we want the quality assessment board to be a serious
undertaking. We want the quality assessment board to truly and
adequately assess the quality and integrity, to act as an
accreditor, if you will, of the academic programs that are being
presented before it, by us, by our competitors and by other
sectors that are going to come forward and want to field academic
programs in this province.
The applied degrees,
contrary to what some others may think, are not necessarily
anti-intellectual and not-serious undertakings. Applied degrees
often can be more serious than some of their academic
counterparts. Surely no one would argue that a law degree or a
medical degree, which are themselves applied degrees, after all,
are not serious simply because they are not a PhD or a bachelor
of arts degree, but rather represent a preparation for following
a very serious profession.
To the end of trying to
establish ourselves here in Ontario as being an academically
serious institution, PrimeTech Institute, which is currently
licensed as a private vocational school and has no requirement
upon it whatever to do so, has independently sought the approval
of the American Council on Education at great expense and trouble
to itself for a variety of courses in the information technology
arena that PrimeTech offers, and its courses have been judged by
the American Council on Education to be the equivalent of 54
upper- and lower-division semester hours as would be offered at
an American university.
As I've read some of the
transcripts of the prior days of this meeting, it obviously has
occurred to me that there has been mention of a number of schools
in my sector, not always in glowing terms. I would urge you that
this is not a question of whether a school is for-profit or
not-for-profit, or whether it is public or private, but that the
quality and integrity of the academic programs ought to stand and
fall on their own merits. The distinction as to whether a
corporation is a net taxpayer or a net tax consumer should not be
a criterion on which to judge whether that institution ought to
be capable of awarding academic degrees.
1640
Finally, I would say that
while I don't want you to judge Argosy by our peer institutions
in the for-profit sector in the United States and that I want the
quality assessment board to judge each application on its own
merits, I would like to add that the quality assessment board
itself in its composition should be a mixed group and should
represent the different sectors of this society that have an
interest in the successful implementation of this bill. Thank you
for your time and consideration.
The Chair:
That leaves us about two minutes for questions. This time it
would be to the Liberal caucus.
Mrs Marie
Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): Thank you for your
presentation. I just want to make clear that my caucus and our
leader agree with applied degrees at public community colleges
here in Ontario. The part of the bill we disagree with is the
private universities, particularly the for-profit, entering
Ontario, for the very
good reasons that the previous presenters alluded to in their
presentation.
You are for-profit and you
have three campuses in Canada. Do you presently offer degrees in
Canada?
Dr
Markovitz: No, we do not. We are licensed as a private
vocational school and are thus far prevented from offering
academic degrees here.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: At times during these hearings I feel
like we're like the quality assessment board, judging whether
people should be getting degrees or not. That's not the purpose
of these hearings. I happen to have a doctorate in psychology.
I'm looking through your handbook here, and although we don't
have a PsyD in Ontario, we certainly have parallel programs where
you get degrees in applied clinical psychology, you get
registered as a psychologist, and we have clinical psychologists.
For software programming engineer, we may not have that exact
title, but we have computer software engineering programs. I
think it's a little stretch to say that you would be offering
programs we don't have. There might be different titles, a
different focus here and there, but we have these programs. I
think that's a stretch.
The other question I have
is, do you offer BAs?
Dr
Markovitz: Yes, we do.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: What is your average tuition for a BA
program?
Dr
Markovitz: The average tuition is about $14,000 a
year.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: American?
Dr
Markovitz: Yes.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: You probably know from your research on
us that that's significantly higher than what we now charge-
Dr
Markovitz: Yes, I'm aware of that.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: -and it's also gone up by 60% over the
last five years. Recently the government has put a 2% cap on
it-this government, believe it or not, has put a 2% cap on it. My
question is, who would be able to afford $14,000 a year, in your
opinion, in Ontario for a BA?
Dr
Markovitz: My response to that is the market will
decide. If $14,000 a year-we have not yet determined-
Mrs
Bountrogianni: It's $14,000 American. I want that in the
Hansard.
Dr
Markovitz: We have not yet determined what our tuition
would be here, but if we price ourselves out of the market, then
we won't have students and we won't be successful.
The Chair:
Thank you very much for bringing the perspective of your
organization before us today.
CANADIAN FEDERATION OF STUDENTS, ONTARIO
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from the Canadian Federation of
Students, the Ontario component. Good afternoon and welcome to
the committee.
Ms Erin
George: My name is Erin George. I'm the Ontario
chairperson for the Canadian Federation of Students. In Ontario
we represent 185,000 college and university students and graduate
students at 23 campuses. Across the country the federation
represents 400,000 students at over 60 schools. With me as well
is our government relations and campaigns co-ordinator, Pam
Frache.
On April 28 the Minister of
Training, Colleges and Universities, Dianne Cunningham, announced
the government's intention to permit the establishment of
private, degree-granting institutions in the province. According
to the government, the introduction of private degree-ranting
institutions is about providing more choice for students by
making available, at no government expense, educational
alternatives currently not offered through the public system. The
government asserts that this initiative responds to public demand
for access to market-specific training, thereby increasing job
opportunities for graduating students.
This government claims that
by introducing private degree-granting institutions, it is
expanding students' choice, but given that many private
institutions will charge students upwards of $10,000 in tuition
fees per year-as we've just heard-we must ask, for whom is the
government expanding choice? Choice, for most Canadians, was
realized with the introduction of affordable, high-quality
post-secondary education. Private institutions will have access
to the Ontario student assistance program. The maximum amount an
applicant can claim will be $4,500. Assuming tuition fees of
$10,000 or $14,000 or more per year, OSAP students will be left
with a shortfall of several thousand dollars. For students
dependent on OSAP, the introduction of private degree-granting
institutions will hardly increase their choice. The federation
believes that if the ministry were sincerely interested in
expanding choice for students, it would reduce tuition fees,
re-regulate tuition fees for all post-diploma, professional and
graduate students and restore the $400 million that has been cut
to operating grants since 1996. It would also build publicly
funded institutions in rural and northern communities.
The government also
promises that no public dollars, other than those provided to
students through OSAP, will be provided to private
degree-granting institutions. However, the track record of US
universities shows a different reality. In the US, about 30% of
private university operating revenue comes from direct and
indirect government subsidies. In fact, these institutions must
state that they are publicly assisted as opposed to private.
Although the government
claims that no public dollars other than OSAP will be made
available, there are many ways in which public money will find
its way to private degree-granting institutions. For example,
students attending private institutions often use public
libraries for their studies. With the tax incentives announced in
this year's provincial budget, corporations may be able to donate
to private institutions and withhold tax dollars that could
otherwise have gone into funding the public system. For employers
that pay for employees' training courses, there are also tax
breaks.
The federation believes that there are too many
loopholes that would have to be closed to prevent private
degree-granting institutions from receiving public money and that
it would be far better for the government to abandon the
initiative altogether.
Post-secondary education is
one of the most important factors in finding satisfactory
employment. Already over 85% of university and college graduates
find employment after graduating, and some institutions have even
higher employment rates. In the meeting with Minister Cunningham
that the federation held on June 6, the minister said that, at
best, private institutions would provide only a few thousand
spaces for students. Studies indicate an additional 90,000 spaces
will be needed to meet the growing demand for post-secondary
education. The federation believes that the plan to introduce
private degree-granting institutions falls well short of what is
needed to provide adequate spaces. Substantial reinvestment for
university and college operating grants is the only reasonable
solution.
There is no guarantee that
the programs offered at private degree-granting institutions will
be of high quality. Moreover, we have several examples over the
past few years where private colleges have gone bankrupt.
Students at such institutions have lost thousands of dollars in
user fees, not to mention the months and years spent
studying.
The government clearly
recognizes these dangers. By proposing to establish a quality
assessment board, the government is in effect anticipating
problems and creating a new level of bureaucracy to head off the
worst of them. But as ministry representatives admitted to the
federation in the June 6 meeting, the government cannot foresee
all potential problems associated with allowing private
institutions to grant degrees. The federation is concerned that
the government has already decided to gamble with students'
futures.
The government has proposed
to set up a quality assessment board to evaluate many aspects of
private institutions to determine if they are degree-worthy.
Since these institutions will supposedly rely only on private
funding, these boards will undoubtedly comprise private sector
representatives accountable only to their shareholders; there can
be little doubt that public input will be marginalized. The
government has stated that the quality assessment board will
provide accountability and transparency to the review of bids for
degree-granting status. But such a board would likely not be
willing or able to disclose information about private
institutions that may be deemed confidential. These boards have
further implications for faculty evaluation, curriculum, and
academic freedom.
The federation believes
that there is no avoiding the conflict of interest inherent in
allowing private sector representatives to assist in monitoring
the performance of private institutions.
1650
Particularly ominous in the
legislation is the provision threatening fines of up to $25,000
for Ontario student assistance program recipients who are found
to have violated OSAP regulations. With tuition fees as high as
they currently are, many students from low- or middle-income
backgrounds will be forced to re-evaluate their post-secondary
education goals. Instead of choosing to follow their interests,
many will be forced to pursue those programs deemed affordable.
However, with the added disincentive of perhaps accruing an
additional $25,000 in fines, many students may opt to avoid
higher education altogether. This is especially true for
traditionally disadvantaged groups in society. The federation
believes that this measure will not expand access to higher
education, but rather discourage those most in need and prevent
them from having access to post-secondary education.
There are currently more
than adequate provisions to redress that minority of students who
consciously defraud the program. The federation believes that the
threat of fines has been inserted into the legislation as part of
an ideological assault on students to suggest to the broader
public that OSAP is widely abused, that students are criminals
and therefore less worthy of financial assistance in pursuing
their studies.
In fact, student loans are
one of the safest form of loans that can be issued. The vast
majority of loans-80%-are repaid without incident. That students
become a default statistic after only 90 days obscures the fact
that even after a loan has gone into default, the vast
majority-93%-are fully repaid. Because the annual OSAP award is
so woefully inadequate to cover both tuition fees and monthly
expenses, a minority of applicants may consider underestimating
their incomes for the purposes of increasing their student loan.
But given that these are indeed loans and given the fact that a
majority of these loans are indeed repaid, this is hardly an
unconscionable act of crime but rather a reflection of the
inadequacy of student financial assistance. If the government
were truly committed to creating a disincentive for students who
may underestimate their incomes on their application, it should
increase the annual OSAP award by creating a more comprehensive
grant program.
If anyone should be called
to account, it should be the Ontario government, which has been
violating the agreement with the federal government on its use of
millennium scholarship monies. The federal government's Canada
Millennium Scholarship Foundation was intended to provide some
measure of student debt relief for students graduating with
thousands of dollars of debt. Currently in Ontario, loan
forgiveness is applied to that amount of money borrowed over and
above $7,000. When the program was first implemented in Ontario,
those millennium scholarship recipients who borrowed more than
$10,000 in OSAP loans saw no debt relief because the scholarship
was simply applied to the portion of the loan that was forgiven.
Although in May the government committed to reduce the threshold
for loan forgiveness from $7,000 to $6,500 for millennium
scholarship recipients, those same students will realize a mere
$500 of the intended $3,000 in debt relief. If anyone should be
investigated for fraud, it should be this government, which is literally taking money
out of the pockets of needy students and using it primarily to
fund existing programs.
There is concern as well
that under existing free trade agreements, the decision to
introduce private degree-granting institutions may seriously
undermine the government's ability to protect publicly funded
post-secondary education. Under the North American free trade
agreement, once a publicly provided service is provided on a
private, commercial basis, then both public and private services
must be treated in the same manner. Either private institutions
will have to be granted public subsidies, or public institutions
would have to see their so-called unfair subsidies eliminated. In
either case, the accessibility of publicly funded higher
education is seriously compromised.
In addition, if education
is a negotiable item in the ongoing World Trade Organization
talks in which the federal government has been actively
participating, the decision by the Ontario government may prove
to be legally irreversible. In his column in the Toronto Star on
November 23, Thomas Walkom wrote: "Under WTO rules, a sector that
is fully opened to the market must effectively remain so. The
reason lies with the so-called `national treatment' clause of the
WTO. Nations are allowed to discriminate against foreign firms
only in those areas dominated by government."
In other words, even if a
government of the future becomes convinced that the decision to
allow private degree-granting institutions in Ontario was
mistaken, under current and future trade deals it would be
illegal for the government to attempt to correct the error by
re-nationalizing.
The federation believes the
government should not proceed with its plans to privatize higher
education without full and adequate research on the long-terms
implications of these measures under trade liberalization
agreements.
The government launched a
series of meetings in which representatives were selected without
process, often at the discretion of local institutional
administrations in the last round of public consultations on
private degree-granting universities. The consultations were
intended to provide the government with input on the creation of
the quality assessment board, not question the premise of
establishing private degree-granting institutions. The main
organizations voicing opposition to the concept as a whole were
not invited to participate in the round table consultations. Only
after this matter was raised openly in the provincial Legislature
did the ministry arrange for private meetings with the
organizations critical of the government. The government has
expressed its reluctance to even release the names and
organizations of those who did participate in the first round of
formal "public" consultations, citing concerns over the right to
privacy and the freedom of information act.
In conclusion, the
government has made a policy decision with little public input
and even less study on the long-term implications of allowing
private institutions to grant degrees. We have already seen the
impact of the private sector on curricula, access and quality of
education. The government is now prepared to put students at
further financial risk.
The consequences of
establishing private degree-granting institutions have not been
thoroughly examined in light of trade agreements as well.
Education should not be a
for-profit enterprise, accountable only to shareholders.
Education is a right. Thus, the federation calls on the
government to withdraw Bill 132 and to restore funding to
democratically controlled, publicly funded universities. If this
government is truly committed to creating choice, it should
reinvest in the existing public post-secondary education system.
It must end deregulation of graduate, professional, post-diploma
and college tuition fees, freeze and reduce tuition fees, and
implement a comprehensive system of needs-based grants. Thank
you.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, and you have timed that virtually to the
second. Congratulations on your planning. I appreciate you taking
the time to make your presentation before us here this
afternoon.
Ms George:
We have no time for questions?
The Chair:
No, no time for questions.
ONTARIO GRADUATE ASSOCIATION
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from the Ontario Graduate
Association, Mr Boyko. Welcome to the committee.
Mr Ian
Boyko: Hello. I just want to start off by saying that I
believe, Mrs Munro, you were my grade 10 history teacher back at
John M. Denison Secondary School in Newmarket.
Mrs Munro:
That's right.
The Chair:
I don't think that's a conflict of interest of any kind.
Mr Boyko:
I just hope that my presentation skills have improved at least
marginally.
As already stated, my name
is Ian Boyko. I'm the vice-chairperson of the Ontario Graduate
Association. We represent over 23,000 graduate students in the
province of Ontario alone. I'm also a master's student at the
University of Windsor, studying sociology.
I want to start off by
stating my association's complete opposition to Bill 132 and
everything it stands for in essence. All I have to do is point to
a September study released by IPSOS-Reid stating that over 66% of
the people polled were opposed to the introduction of private
universities in the province of Ontario. I've decided not to
produce materials today, mainly because I think most of my
comments will echo those of the previous presenters, because we
stand in solidarity against this bill.
I think tuition fees are
one of the most important things to consider in this bill. It
doesn't take a lot of research to demonstrate the effects that
private universities could potentially have on the province of
Ontario. Unregulated tuition at private universities of course is
not the answer to the accessibility question facing the double
cohort and then the echo
boom behind our double cohort. Even the minister acknowledges
that there will be no way to predict the costs associated with
these degrees, and of course earlier presenters have also stated
that they don't really have a good idea of what the costs would
be. The most chilling quote, and I've only been here for about 20
minutes, is that the market will decide who can afford to go to
these institutions. That's very far from a guarantee of
access.
1700
One of the arguments around
Bill 132 that I find most frustrating is that the ministry has
been using competition in Ontario as a kind of caveat to why
private universities are so necessary. I can tell you that
deregulation has only placed overwhelmingly upward pressure on
tuition fees, and this kind of open market competition has done
anything but produce a buyer's market. Competition is exactly the
argument my university used last spring when it introduced a 45%
increase in tuition fees to law students, citing what other
schools had done before them.
We have to look no further
than the tuition fees at some of the private universities that
are knocking on our door. The University of Phoenix has
historically charged up to $40,000 for an undergraduate degree,
and one of the previous presenters said that $14,000 a year is
possibly what we could expect from their franchise opening in
this province.
I'll also talk briefly
about the quality assessment board. Quality assessment boards are
certainly not new to private colleges in the province. The
quality assessment board, or its similarly named predecessor,
didn't help 200 students at Shaw College when it went bankrupt
and left them in the lurch. Even if, as this government claims,
we can secure a kind of bonded tuition agreement with these
franchises, if a college or university goes broke, that still
doesn't make up for lost time a student spent in that
institution. As the CFS already said, it's just an unneeded layer
of bureaucracy. Universities in Ontario produce some of the
highest quality graduates in the country, and this is evidenced
by their own self-regulation. Most familiar to me is the Ontario
Council on Graduate Studies, which does self-regulation.
What hasn't necessarily
been mentioned in as much detail previously is how this
government can ensure that public dollars won't be siphoned off
into these universities in the form of research grants. Most
research grants are doled out on the federal level through the
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Canadian
Institutes of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council and the newer Canada Foundation for
Innovation. I want people to understand that the Canada
Foundation for Innovation is structured so that 40% of the
funding comes from the federal government and 60% must come from
other sources. Typically, that has meant 40% of the research
funding has come from the province, so I want to ask the panel
whether you can guarantee that these private institutions won't
receive research funding under the current arrangements.
Finally, as I think the CFS
pointed out quite well, there are many disturbing questions
around trade liberalization and private universities, which are
inadequately answered. I find this very disturbing, because the
answers we have received from the ministry to date are wholly
inadequate, and I'm very skeptical that all the research that
needs to be done around trade liberalization has been conducted.
I was at some of the public consultations, and all the minister
could say was, "Our research says no," that this wouldn't affect
private universities. I don't think that's adequate. It's quite
clear, based on precedents in other private sector disputes, that
we could consider government grants to public institutions an
unfair subsidy to a domestic operation or business, which, as you
obviously know, is an illegal trade practice. I would like to
receive a guarantee from this government that we've received
assurances that this won't happen. If we try to kind of explain
away that universities aren't a business and don't operate like
that, I think Bill 132 kind of defines education as an industry
de facto, and I'm afraid about how that would protect us under
those kinds of legal battles.
In conclusion, I just came
back from a conference of over 130 delegates from over 50 student
unions across the country. There wasn't a single student union
asking for private universities, and that's from coast to coast
to coast. So it's very clear that this isn't something desired by
students or by student leaders in this country, nor by the
faculty, nor even by the administrations. I have to reiterate our
opposition to this, in that it's difficult to imagine how these
private universities and institutions would be accountable to the
public. Their sole purpose-the very bottom line, by definition-is
to generate profit for their shareholders. I fail to see how this
serves the public good.
I think that's it, but
perhaps you could answer my previous questions about how we can
guarantee this wouldn't affect us under trade liberalization, and
how this government would contribute to research at these private
universities.
The Chair:
Thank you. Normally the rotation would go to Ms Lankin. Do you
mind? We've got lots of time for questioning. Do you want a
response first?
Ms Lankin:
How much time do we have?
The Chair:
We've got about seven minutes.
Ms Lankin:
Sure, if Ms Molinari wants to briefly respond to that, that'd be
terrific.
Ms
Molinari: Is that seven minutes in total, or
divided-
The Chair:
In total, and it's Ms Lankin's turn, so if you could restrict
your comments to perhaps two minutes.
Ms
Molinari: OK, thank you. In response to the question on
funding for research-that was part of your presentation; that's
what you were asking-the one that you were referring to in your
presentation is a federal research grant and we have no control
over what the federal government provides for research.
Research grants provincially are given from the
various ministries. We can't guarantee that any ministry would
not support research funding for any institution that would find
that there's a program or something that they would be excelling
in. It's each individual ministry that would determine that.
Mr Boyko:
Would I be able to have a supplemental to that?
The Chair:
Again, briefly.
Mr Boyko:
This government has over and over guaranteed that no public funds
will be siphoned off into these private institutions, that no
public dollars will go there but, clearly, what I'm hearing is
that that's not the case. You're not willing to enforce this in
other ministries. I'm a little unclear, because research grants
are quite clearly public funds, but I'm hearing that no public
funds are going to these institutions, so that's an
inconsistency.
Ms
Molinari: You're asking whether the institutions will be
supported? They will receive no capital grants and no operating
grants. That's clear.
Mr Boyko:
OK.
Ms
Molinari: Students will be able to apply for the Ontario
student assistance program, so OSAP will be available for
students. Your question about research grants: those grants are
given by different ministries and, no, I can't speak for all of
the ministries on whether or not that would be something that
they would consider.
The Chair:
Thank you. Ms Lankin?
Ms Lankin:
How much time do we have?
The Chair:
We still have four and a half minutes.
Ms Lankin:
I appreciate the presentation you made. Let me give my
compliments to Ms Munro and her contribution to your education.
Obviously she did a fine job in her previous career.
A couple of comments: let
me just say on the GATT concerns that you raised, the free trade
concerns that you raised, I think you're right to raise those
concerns and I think that we are due an extensive response to
that. Formerly, at a time when I was a member of the governing
party as Minister of Economic Development and Trade and a
participant in the internal trade negotiations, the
interprovincial trade negotiations, as well as some of the
various rulings that we were receiving, working through the
federal government with respect to GATT and WTO, I have to
indicate that there are two bodies of thought at this point in
time. I've spent some time contacting people and I've spoken to
people within the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade as
well, and there are some grey areas. I think the government, at
the very least, owes us a full explanation on which-they are
proceeding on the premise that there are no GATT or trade
implications, and I think that your demand to that is entirely
reasonable.
I'd like to just explore
the comments you made around the diversion of public dollars into
the private institutions, and I think Ms Molinari's reluctance or
inability to assure that public research grants won't be siphoned
off in that direction is problematic.
I would also suggest that-I
don't want to pick on Argosy, but just because I happen to have
the report in front of me, and to be fair, this is an annual
report, which is a financial record, so the focus is going to be
on finances; it's going to be on the profits. For example, they
talk about how they look at the niche market of the doctoral
degree because it's a longer program and can be charged higher
tuitions. That's a good thing for shareholders, right, that niche
marketing?
Also, though, the role of
philanthropists in donating to research programs in such niche
marketers, and I would also say corporations: those are supported
by tax credits at this point in time. You know and you would
experience in your own studies in your own university the
dramatic competition for research dollars that exists at this
point in time in our public institutions. I think there is,
again, a significant and a reasonable concern.
I wonder if I could end
with a brief question: could you comment on the diversion of OSAP
dollars, of student loans, student support dollars to the new
potential for-profit universities and what that means overall in
terms of the tuition-based support for our public universities
and the security of their funding base.
1710
Mr Boyko:
Yes. Just really briefly, my organization is opposed to the use
of any public funds to be diverted into private institutions, and
that includes student loans.
I think this government's
claims that private universities will open up choice in the
province-quick, think of a polite way to put it-aren't true.
They're not true. If there is any lack of choice, it's because
institutions are being forced to downsize and cut programs that
aren't necessarily attractive to private donors. That would be
the only instance where there's maybe not enough choice in
Ontario and that can be easily solved by restoring the operating
grants that we've seen cut.
The second part of your
question, I'm not totally clear on.
Ms Lankin:
I think you've covered it in there.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Boyko, for coming before us here this
afternoon.
Mr Boyko:
Thank you.
The Chair:
Is Professor Graham here yet?
ATHABASCA UNIVERSITY
The Chair:
Seeing that our next presenter has not arrived, are the
representatives from Athabasca University prepared to come
forward? Good afternoon, welcome to the committee.
Ms Frances
Gunn: You mean I can use both 15 minutes?
The Chair:
You certainly may.
Ms Gunn:
My name is Frances Gunn and I represent Athabasca University
throughout the province of Ontario. I am here this afternoon on
behalf of our president, Dr Dominique Abrioux.
I'd like to make three
points with you this afternoon. The first is to introduce you to
Athabasca University, and the second and third are about some specific
recommendations we'd like to make about Bill 132.
To begin, Athabasca
University is Canada's open university. We are the premier and
the largest provider of distance and on-line high-quality
university education in Canada. We're publicly funded in Alberta
and, as an open university, our mandate is to provide
high-quality university education to all potential students.
We're dedicated to removing barriers to access to education.
That's how we're built.
Most importantly, I think,
for the purposes of our discussion here is that we are a full
member of the Association of Universities and Community Colleges
of Canada. I'll be speaking about this fairly often so I'll refer
to it as AUCC-quite a mouthful.
We currently have 24,000
students across Canada and the world. Six thousand of those are
here in Ontario. Our students come to us for a number of reasons:
firstly, they want a flexible route to a university credential
and that means without having to leave home or their families or
communities; secondly, they want to take courses for transfer
perhaps to Ontario universities; and thirdly, they may want to
complete a degree after doing a diploma at one of the Ontario
colleges.
As a result of this, we
would like to make a recommendation about section 2 of the bill.
Section 2 refers to the authority to grant a degree, as you know.
AU, or Athabasca, currently has hundreds of agreements in place
now with community colleges across Ontario and with Ontario
universities. These agreements provide for students to be able to
transfer credits for other credentials; it allows them to
complete degrees; it allows them to gain credit or recognition of
their previous learning, and they are often collaborative
programs.
All of these agreements are
around parts of a degree. The wording in section 2 of the bill,
particularly paragraphs 2 and 3, refer to a part of a degree not
being offered by the people outside or inside Ontario. This
wording would make these well-established agreements not only
cumbersome but in some circumstances extremely difficult. As a
result, we would like to recommend that the wording "part of ...
a degree" be removed from section 2, paragraphs 2 and 3. Now, I
believe you've already heard this in some other context, perhaps
from some of the college presentations.
Most important, though, I
would like to speak to section 4, which is about the terms and
conditions of the consent of the minister. As I mentioned,
Athabasca University is a full member of AUCC. Although there is
no national accreditation of publicly funded universities in
Canada, the default accreditation status is this membership in
AUCC. The process is a very rigorous evaluation and it's capped
by a visit from three presidents from member institutions, so
three other university presidents. Because of this process,
across Canada, members have equivalent standards to other
members.
There are three results
from this. The first is that there is a very homogeneous
university community across Canada. There is widespread
acceptance of credits and degrees among that community. The
second is that this provides for recognition that publicly funded
universities are accountable to their government and to their
students by this commonality of standards. The third is that AUCC
members can generally provide on-site and/or distance education
with only a pro forma declaration in other provinces.
Section 4 makes no
provision for and/or any recognition of this consistency among
publicly funded institutions across Canada. We would like to
recommend that section 4 be amended so the new act includes an
expedited process for AUCC members and that that process means
that applications perhaps take three months for approval. This
process should be very separate from the process for colleges and
their applied degree applications and certainly for private
institutions. Finally, this process should accept the AUCC
membership as the primary stamp for AUCC members to conduct
learner-centred activities in Ontario, and that AUCC members not
have to have their institutional standards re-examined or
reassessed with every application.
In summary, I'm glad to
introduce you to Athabasca University, if you're not already
aware of us. I would like to make a recommendation around section
2 but, most important, I would certainly like to make a
recommendation around section 4 as it applies to publicly funded
institutions across Canada.
The Chair:
Thank you. That has left us time for questions, about five
minutes. This time it will come to the government.
Mrs
Molinari: I'll begin, and if my colleagues have anything
to add, then certainly they can.
First I want to clarify one
of your concerns in section 2 with regard to the wording of "or
part of a program." I want to assure you that the government
fully supports and encourages the co-operative arrangements that
are presently there between colleges of applied and technology
and our Ontario public universities. This bill will not affect
any of those future agreements. Students will be provided with
that seamless post-secondary educational experience and recognize
that they study at all different levels. I hope that addresses
your concern with that. That was not the intent of that
wording.
Ms Gunn:
Out-of-province institutions also, Ms Molinari?
Mrs
Molinari: Those that presently have a co-operative
program within Ontario will continue to have that, so having that
in the act is not going to affect those that at present already
have a good working relationship. As a government we support
positive and good working relationships between various
institutions and what they provide for the students. It's
something that has been successful, and we anticipate that it
will continue to be successful. It will not jeopardize that at
all.
I want to thank you for
your presentation. It's quite extensive. Also your brochures and
everything you've supplied for us certainly can give all the
committee members a very good picture of the success that
Athabasca University has had over the years and that it will
continue to have. We
appreciate your taking the time to come and make your
presentation.
Ms Gunn:
And section 4, at the risk of-
Mrs
Molinari: The recommendations will be taken into account
with the rest of the presentations that are coming forward in
these hearings. That's what the hearings are for, and these will
be looked at by the ministry to see if the concerns you've raised
can be addressed. Hopefully we'll be able to cover those concerns
as well.
Mrs Julia Munro
(York North): Thank you very much for coming. I just
have a quick question that does go back to section 4. I wondered
whether or not you could give us any examples of other provinces
where those negotiations or recognitions-my concern stems from
the notion that there wouldn't be the same relationship in terms
of accountability. I just wondered if you had other examples in
other provinces.
Ms Gunn: I
certainly have, and I can tell you that with every other province
the only process for publicly funded institutions is a pro forma
one. For example, if Queen's wants to do a weekend session of
their MBA in Alberta, it's very much a pro forma process that
involves notifying the government, "We're going to be here at
this time and here are our activities." It really is to that
degree of complexity. It's an even smaller process, if I can use
that vernacular, in other provinces. For example, in BC a
publicly funded institution can conduct activities-ie, put on
classes or distance education activities-without notification or
with very little notification.
Here in Ontario our
experience is that it's been quite a long process of approval on
applications. So we're also looking for this same sort of
relationship that publicly funded institutions have with other
provincial jurisdictions.
Mr Garfield Dunlop
(Simcoe North): Just a quick question. Do you have any
international clients?
Ms Gunn:
Oh, yes, very much so.
Mr Dunlop:
How about Americans?
Ms Gunn:
The Open University out of Britain has just recently formed the
Open University in the United States, and we are a member of that
consortium. When you say "clients," if we're talking students,
the answer is yes. We've got a whole pile of nurses in Texas who
are taking our post-RN degree with us, for example.
The Chair:
Thank you very much. We appreciate your taking the time to come
and make a presentation before us this afternoon.
I will try again. Is
Professor Graham here yet? We had received a call from his office
that he was running late. Seeing no professor, how about a
representative from the Canadian Union of Public Employees,
Ontario?
Ms Lankin:
Can we have five-minute recess?
The Chair:
Ms Lankin has asked for a five-minute recess, and in that time
I'll ask the clerk to contact the offices of those two
individuals to see whether they are still intending to attend.
The committee stands recessed for five minutes.
The committee recessed
from 1724 to 1728.
The Chair:
I am told we are now joined by our final presenter this
afternoon.
CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, ONTARIO
The Chair:
Good afternoon. Thank you for arriving a little early and taking
the space of someone who has not been able to make it.
Mr Brian
O'Keefe: My name is Brian O'Keefe. I'm the
secretary-treasurer of CUPE Ontario. We're very pleased to have
the opportunity to give our views on this important piece of
legislation.
We represent a large part
of the workforce in the university system. We represent 180,000
members across this province and we have 19,000 support staff who
work in the university system, including a lot of the maintenance
and custodial workers, teaching assistants and contract
faculty.
We have major concerns with
this piece of legislation. We feel this is going in a direction
that is totally contrary to everything we stand for in Ontario.
This government has no mandate to go in this direction. This is
not something that was put to the electorate. We see this as
undermining the quality post-secondary education system we've got
in this province, the 17 current publicly administered
universities. We feel it will undermine those universities, and
not only that, but it will erode access to quality education.
What we're seeing more and more in this province is a drift
toward a situation where post-secondary education is a privilege
of the few, where there's a polarization between the rich and the
poor, and where everybody is being shut out with the exception of
better off people. We feel that is totally contrary to all the
principles we believe in in Ontario.
I want to address three
specific issues. The first issue I want to talk about is the
creeping restructuring that's going on in the universities
already. Although the main focus of this legislation is around
granting private degree-granting institutions the right to set up
in this province, there's a huge amount of privatization creeping
into the system already. There are a number of different ways
this is appearing. Through the research and development challenge
fund, we're seeing partnerships with the private sector. We also
have the traditional public-private partnerships. We have
long-term leases that are being granted to the private sector for
little or no money. We also have situations where we have
minority shareholdings and also franchises.
There are a whole variety
of different structures of privatization that are out there right
now and this is creating a huge amount of havoc in the system.
There's a huge amount of demoralization of the workers in the
university system. Some bitter strikes have taken place over the
last year, at the University of Toronto and now we've got a
bitter struggle going on at York University. We see that as very
much a symptom of what's going on in the restructuring in the
post-secondary education sector. We feel that's very regrettable
and that this piece of legislation opens the door to the merging of
programs and other restructuring. It all seems to be focused on
the corporate model, the bottom line model. We don't see this as
furthering quality education in any way, shape or form. That's
not the agenda here. We feel the agenda should be toward
providing quality education, not education that's delivered on
the cheap.
The main issue I want to
talk about is granting the privilege to private degree-granting
institutions to set up in this province. It's a myth to think
that public money isn't going to go to these institutions. It
will go there in a variety of different forms, whether it be
through the tax system or through the use of existing university
and public libraries. That is certainly going to happen. What we
see in the United States is that, on average, private
universities get about 30% of their funding from the public
sector. So it is not true that public money won't go there; it
will. The most obnoxious part about this is that it will siphon
money away from the existing universities we have in this
province and will undermine them. You're going to see a
deterioration of standards in the existing system to finance
these private degree-granting institutions.
Also, we see with the
existing private universities we know about in this country, and
I'm talking about the University of Phoenix in British Columbia
and Unexus in New Brunswick, that the fees for those universities
are about triple what they are for the average university in
Ontario. This is catering to the elite, to those people who are
better off. It's certainly not going to do anything to deal with
the issue of accessibility to post-secondary education in this
province. You're probably well aware that over the past 10 years,
tuition fees have risen on average by 140%. Students are footing
the bill for the education system to the point where
middle-income people and poor people are rapidly reaching the
point where they're not going to be able to attend these
institutions. So private degree-granting institutions are not
going to do anything to help the accessibility issue.
Then there's the issue of
increased enrolment. As you're well aware, enrolment in
universities is probably going to increase by about 40% over the
next 10 years. That issue has to be addressed. We've also got the
double cohort issue that's coming up in a few years' time. Both
of these issues have to be dealt with. If there's some notion
that private degree-granting institutions are going to solve that
problem, they certainly are not. It's going to make the issue
much worse because the existing institutions are going to be
undermined.
Another issue that's really
important is the creaming that's going to take place. These
private groups that we know of are primarily centred around
delivering post-graduate degrees in the business sector. Those
are going to be creamed away from the existing system. It's going
to shift resources out of the public sector into these private
institutions, and I think that's extremely regrettable.
As far as the treatment of
students is concerned, this is also a major concern. I think you
should look very carefully at the record of the University of
Phoenix in the US. They have been up on a number of different
charges. They were fined half a million dollars for sloppy
reporting and record-keeping. They gave inaccurate information
around eligibility for student loans and were fined $6 million
for that. This is the sort of thing we're going to see if these
institutions set up shop here. Furthermore, we've got to look at
the possibility that some of these institutions may go bankrupt
or get themselves into serious financial trouble. What is going
to happen to the students who are attending these bodies? That is
a major concern.
There's another part of
this legislation that I have real concern about and that deals
with the accessibility issue again. There's a really strong tone
around streaming that appears in this legislation, where you're
trying to parallel what's going on in the school system where
people are being forced into making a choice at grade 9 whether
they want to go into an academic field or a technical field. It
seems to me that what's being advocated in this legislation is to
parallel what's going on in the school board system. This is
regrettable. It's not the Canadian tradition and certainly our
union is going to fight that with everything we've got. Streaming
is not going to advance the interests of working people in this
province. If we want real accessibility, we've got to go in a
very different direction to that.
On the funding issue, I
think it's really important to talk about funding because there
are some real choices here. The government decided to go in a
direction toward the private sector, trying to farm out as much
of the post-secondary education system as possible, over to the
private sector to deal with the demands that are out there.
That's the first thing they've done. The second thing they've
tried to do is to increase the level of funding coming from
tuition. It's my understanding right now that less than 50% of
the funds are coming from the government, somewhere in the
vicinity of 30% is coming from students and the rest is from the
private sector. This is a very sad state of affairs that has come
to this province, where it appears the government is bailing out
of its responsibilities for post-secondary education.
This government has cut the
funding to the existing 17 universities by $280 million. That was
back in 1996-97. If you project that to the current date, it's a
much higher amount of money. So a significant amount of money has
been cut out of the system. The solution is not a private-sector
solution; the solution is to properly fund the existing education
system.
Another issue that's really
important is the quality assessment board, that somehow or other
this is how there's going to be accountability in the system. I
see this as giving away the store. The government wants to get
out of making the serious decisions that need to be made in
post-secondary education by farming it out to an arm's-length
body. This is a very unfortunate trend. Previously, to set up a
university in this province, there had to be a piece of
legislation that was properly debated, and people were consulted.
What's going to happen here is that we have a body-we don't even
know who is going to
be on this body-making decisions that should rightly be made in
the public forum.
There's another issue
that's of great concern here, and that is, is this quality
assessment board in the final analysis going to have the power to
give the existing public institutions the right to transfer over
to the private sector if they so desire? If that's the agenda,
that's going to be a sad loss for everybody in this province.
As to the inspectors who
are going to be checking up on various different aspects of the
system, we have a real concern that there are going to be people
checking up on students in terms of their eligibility for loans,
checking their T4 slips against their loan forms and stuff like
that. We see this as a real invasion of privacy. The energy is
not going in the direction it should be.
In summary, we are totally
opposed to this direction. We feel this direction is totally
contrary to the principles we believe in in this province, of a
quality, publicly administered, accessible education system
that's available to everybody. We see some very serious impacts
here for working people, both those who are attending education,
the children of families who want to attend education and the
actual workers who work in the system. This will be a disaster
and it is not going to do anything to provide quality
post-secondary education in this province.
The Chair:
You've timed your presentation to the minute. We very much
appreciate your coming before us and the very detailed submission
you've brought with you. Thank you for coming early and
accommodating us. It's my understanding we have a vote in a
couple of minutes, anyway.
With that, committee
members, since I don't believe Professor Graham-I've seen no one
else come in. Mr Levac?
Mr Levac:
Mr Chair, thank you for the indulgence. If Professor Graham has
submitted a package, would it be possible to have it?
The Chair:
We will circulate anything we receive from Professor Graham or
anyone else who makes a submission to the committee.
Mr Levac:
I have a question of clarification. That being said-there were
comments made by the members on the other side that we'd take
these into consideration-I'm assuming that all presentations are
collected by the committee that's doing the research, and the
amendments and all that kind of stuff, and they are taken into
consideration even though they weren't able to make
presentations.
The Chair:
Absolutely, and all written correspondence is circulated to all
the committee members.
With that, the committee
stands adjourned until 3:30 next Monday.
