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
Ontario Chamber of
Commerce
Mr Doug Robson
Mr Atul Sharma
Cambrian College of
Applied Arts and Technology
Dr Frank Marsh
Canadore College of
Applied Arts and Technology
Dr Timothy McTiernan
Conestoga College of
Applied Arts and Technology
Dr John Tibbits
George Brown College of
Applied Arts and Technology
Mr Michael Cooke
Mr Colin Lock
Georgian College of
Applied Arts and Technology
Mr Brian Tamblyn
Seneca College of
Applied Arts and Technology
Dr Stephen Quinlan
Redeemer University
College
Dr. Justin Cooper
Association of
Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology of Ontario
Ms Susan Bloomfield
Fanshawe College of
Applied Arts and Technology
Dr Howard Rundle
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
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton PC)
Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt ND)
Also taking part / Autres participants et
participantes
Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth ND)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Anne Stokes
Staff /Personnel
Mr Larry Johnston, research officer,
Research and Information Services
The committee met at 1540 in committee room
1.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mr Steve
Gilchrist): I call the committee to order for the first
day of hearings on 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.
The first order of business
will be the report of the subcommittee. Mrs Molinari, I wonder if
I could impose on you to move that and read it into the record,
please.
Mrs Tina R. Molinari
(Thornhill): I will read into the record the report of
the subcommittee.
Your subcommittee met on
Thursday, November 2, 2000, to consider business before the
committee and recommends the following:
(1) That the committee meet
on Monday, November 20, Wednesday, November 22, and Wednesday,
November 29, 2000, in Toronto, to hold public hearings on 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.
(2) That clause-by-clause
consideration of the bill be undertaken on Monday, December 4,
2000.
(3) That an advertisement be
placed in the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail, on the ONT.PARL
channel and the Legislative Assembly Web site. That a press
release be distributed to as many newspapers as possible in both
French and English across the province and that, if possible, the
advertisement be placed on an e-mail distribution list to all
universities and colleges in the province and to student
associations at addresses provided by the legislative research
service. The clerk is authorized to place the ads
immediately.
(4) That witnesses be given a
deadline of Thursday, November 16, 2000, at noon to make their
request to appear before the committee and a deadline of Friday,
December 1, 2000, at 5 pm for written submissions.
(5) That individual witnesses
be allotted 10 minutes for each presentation and organizations be
allotted 15 minutes for each presentation. That the clerk will
consult with the Chair to determine which requests to appear
constitute an organization.
(6) That the clerk will
schedule witnesses on a first-come, first-served basis. That if
there are more requests to appear than can be accommodated, the
clerk will schedule witnesses until the first day is full and the
two subsequent days are 50% booked, at which time the clerk will
advise the Chair who will consult with the subcommittee members
who will make selections of witnesses for the remaining time.
(7) That amendments should be
received by the clerk of the committee by Friday, December 1,
2000, at noon.
(8) That the research officer
provide a summary of the proceedings to the committee by November
30, 2000, at 5 pm.
(9) That the clerk of the
committee, in consultation with the Chair, be authorized prior to
the passage of the report of the subcommittee to commence making
any preliminary arrangements necessary to facilitate the
committee's proceedings.
The Chair:
Thank you. Any debate? Seeing none, all those in favour of
accepting the subcommittee report? It's carried.
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 postsecondaire,
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.
ONTARIO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Chair:
That takes us to our first presenter. Recognizing that we are a
little behind time, it will probably be closer to 14 minutes than
15 minutes for the presentations today, because I don't want to
cut anyone off and our rules demand that we end when the House
rises.
Our first presentation will be from the Ontario
Chamber of Commerce, Mr Doug Robson. Good afternoon and welcome
to the committee. Perhaps, Doug, you could introduce your
colleagues for the purpose of Hansard.
Mr Douglas
Robson: You've just identified me correctly. I am the
President and COO of the Ontario chamber, which is contrary to
what your written piece says there. We're delighted to be here.
Atul Sharma is our chief economist and Karim Nensi is our policy
analyst. As I say, we appreciate this opportunity to speak to you
today.
Most of you are well aware
that the Ontario chamber is a federation of 156 local chambers of
commerce and boards of trade. Through our chamber network we
represent over 55,000 businesses in Ontario. The OCC represents
businesses from all sectors of the economy and businesses of all
sizes. As such, we are the largest Ontario-based business
association. Our organization is represented in each community
through our member chambers of commerce and boards of trade.
The OCC has for some time
seen the need for the province to establish a private alternative
within the university sector. Today, more Ontarians than ever are
seeking to improve their marketable skills by investing in
education. Allowing greater change in education not only benefits
students but also helps to develop Ontario's competitiveness.
This is especially the case in today's new economy industries
that appear to be employing a growing share of the workforce.
Accelerated growth within the
high-tech sector and the rapid pace of innovation and advancement
has meant that businesses of all kinds have had to update their
own skills and re-educate their employees about newer
methodologies. At the OCC, we believe that this trend will
continue and more and more members of the labour force will be
looking to upgrade their skills. These anticipated requirements
for skilled staff in growth sectors such as automotive,
machinery, tool, die and mould, aerospace, information technology
and communications exceed the current capacity to train. The
rapid convergence of sectors demands ongoing, lifelong learning
to retain a competitive edge. With the advent of private
institutions in Ontario through this legislation, prospective
students will have a greater choice than ever before.
This transition toward a
technological marketplace in our economy has resulted in a number
of adults already in the workforce seeking to acquire more
up-to-date skills through several institutions offering applied
and/or technical programs. There is an increasingly growing need
for employees to attain a higher level of education in order to
meet the high skill levels required by employers locally and
globally. This has created a demand for more flexible learning
opportunities for individuals to access customized learning at
any time and anywhere convenient to the learner.
The proposed legislation will
therefore enable working people to access quality education at
their convenience. This may be in the form of programs offered in
the evenings or on-line, both of which are initiatives that
private institutions may be more inclined to offer.
Other key groups that would
utilize institutions which arise from this legislation are mature
students wanting to upgrade their education and training and
traditional university students who may be attracted to a unique
and different method of teaching that would more adequately
prepare them for direct entry into the workforce. Such
individuals will under this legislation have the ability to
direct their education toward building on their long-term
goals.
A benefit of private
post-secondary institutions would be in their ability to offer in
their curriculum a continuous educational system customized to
the types of jobs available. This applied learning model would
enable learners to progress through a seamless continuum of
learning from start to end, with adequate work experience such as
co-operative work opportunities and industry certification,
ensuring their effectiveness as soon as they enter the workforce.
Institutions already in place outside Ontario would also be able
to offer courses of study that are entirely based on-line, with
an individual's home PC serving, in effect, as their school. As
well, other institutions may offer certain courses of study to
more conveniently appeal to the working student determined to
upgrade his or her skills. These are proven examples of work and
study translating into a better-equipped workforce.
This new form of private
education is not meant to displace conventional university
programs. Instead, this additional choice should be available as
a means of helping individuals improve their educational
standards. The presence of this option will enrich the
opportunities available to students at a time when the ability to
compete internationally has never been greater.
Another significant driving
force for this legislation, in our opinion, is the fact that it
would create the effect of much-needed competition within the
university sector. This sort of competition is both beneficial to
the student and the institution. The major effect of this
competition is a higher level of quality that may be offered to
learners. In order to attract students, private institutions
would have to offer leading-edge curriculum with proven results
and highly motivated staff in a market-based environment.
This model has been available
for some time in the United States, with impressive results.
Traditional universities are motivated to improve their quality
of education due to the newer competition and can take advantage
of marketing efforts being undertaken by private institutions
increasing the overall market size.
1550
The establishment of a
private institution of any kind has never been an easy
undertaking. It is crucial that the government invoke an
extensive check-and-balance system to ensure that these
institutions do exhibit sound accountability, like any other
entity operating in the corporate sphere.
The OCC applauds the government's initiative to
establish the quality assessment board. We believe that this
board will indeed serve as a critical step in the challenge of
ensuring the accountability of private institutions. It is
essential that this board review all the applications with the
utmost care in the interest of ensuring that Ontario's students
have access to the very best quality education. The board's
scrutiny in the curricula and management of new institutions is
important in securing Ontario's reputation as a first-class
provider of education.
Protecting the taxpayer and
students are crucial elements of this legislation. Such measures
would ensure that students are protected from the institution
closing suddenly and that the taxpayer is not paying for the
failed institution. The OCC is in accordance with the government
in ensuring that students are adequately protected should the
institution close. It is important that students are protected
from financial and other losses they may incur. A centralized
pool or database of student records is also a key measure in
guaranteeing students that their investment is protected and that
they will receive credit for work they have completed.
Public annual reports of
private institutions should be easily accessible to the general
public for reference. Further, a standardized and required
financial audit procedure should also be conducted annually in
the interest of accountability. There must be transparency in the
operations of the institution. Furthermore, these institutions
should not receive direct public funding.
The OCC would recommend that
the board examine ways of ensuring that students are able to
switch between public and private institutions seamlessly. This
capability for students to effectively transfer between
institutions should be added to the legislation.
The OCC believes that in
today's meritocratic workplace, employees will be constantly
seeking to improve their skill level. The high speed of
advancement in today's society has meant that many mature workers
have had to upgrade or even change their careers midway through
their lives. Thus, institutions providing such opportunities will
enable these individuals to seek out better skills and maintain
that competitive edge which they require to succeed. Ontario's
mission of becoming the most competitive jurisdiction in North
America depends on its people's ability to remain competitive.
Therefore, these opportunities will continuously and conveniently
allow those wanting to acquire valuable skills the ability to do
so.
Community colleges will
continue to play a vital role in the educational system of our
youth. The Ontario Chamber of Commerce supports the move to allow
the community colleges to grant applied degrees. We believe that
these institutions should be encouraged to upgrade selected
programs to meet provincial standards and grant provincially
recognized degrees. Because the ministry has the ultimate power
in granting this ability, it is important that they initially
recognize the work of Ontario's current community colleges.
This legislation may well
result in a flood of other institutions from across North America
competing to enter Ontario's new market for this service.
However, in Ontario's best interests, it is important to grow and
develop Ontario's current capabilities as opposed to opening up
the market too quickly. Such measures as expanding the capability
of Ontario's current community college system, which are
institutions that the average taxpayer is confident in, will
smooth this transition. A slow but steady shift to newer and
existing external institutions is necessary in ensuring the new
system is accepted. The government should bring about this change
in a slow and deliberate manner. It is therefore the OCC's
recommendation that the government bring about this change in a
measured and delayed fashion.
The OCC is firmly in support
of this new initiative. We believe such changes will bring about
necessary competition within the post-secondary sector. We also
believe that as our economy continues to change the ability to
upgrade and acquire new skills will remain critical to employees.
Such measures will ensure that not only will Ontario's employee
pool remain competitive, but so will Ontario's place as the most
competitive jurisdiction in North America.
However, the OCC continues to
reiterate the notion that in order for such change to be accepted
and effective, a number of steps must be taken; first, that the
government ensures that such change is completed in a deliberate
manner with adequate checks and balances in place, protecting
Ontario's learners and taxpayers. We also recommend that the
board initially qualify post-secondary institutions, including
existing private sector training centres already established and
based in Ontario. Such institutions require far less capital
expense and place the students and taxpayers at less risk. Once
an evaluation of these initial institutions can be completed,
then, and only then, would it be prudent to grant outside
institutions authority to operate in Ontario.
In the end, the greatest
beneficiary of this change will be the people of Ontario. If this
change is brought about in an appropriate manner, then proof of
its success will lie in the success of our economy.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Robson. That leaves us about a minute and a half
for questions. We'll start with the Liberals, please.
Mrs Marie
Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): Thank you for your
presentation. Would you consider OSAP administration of loans
direct public funding or not?
Mr Robson: I
would argue that's indirect.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: You mentioned that it should be written
into the legislation that if an institution closes, the credits
be transferable. You're making the assumption that the programs
are similar.
Mr Robson:
Excuse me. That's not what we said. We were urging that there be
a way of allowing credits to be transferable, period, and we were
looking for central record-keeping so that if an institution
closed, there would be a reference point for people to go to.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: Sorry, that is what I meant to say. I'm
sorry if I said it differently. We'll see Hansard.
You're assuming, perhaps, that the students and the
programs will be very similar. As you are well aware, the double
cohort will cause many more students in our university and
college system. It may be practically impossible for students to
transfer from a closed, private institution to an open but
bursting-at-the-seams public institution. Do you have any
suggestion as to how the government can deal with that strong
possibility? In Hamilton, in my own riding, three private
colleges closed in one year. The ministry did a great job in
trying to accommodate the students. I have to admit that staff
were excellent, but not all the students were accommodated to
other institutions.
Mr Atul
Sharma: We're assuming that it would be up to the
quality assessment board, as it's set up, that those institutions
would not close so quickly. The double cohort is expected I think
in 2003-04, around then. I expect that any institution that was
allowed to establish should be able to run for at least a few
years to accommodate the double cohort.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: So would you like that in the
legislation? Could that be in the legislation, that no private
institution be allowed to close in the middle of the school year,
the way the three did in Hamilton? They closed right in the
middle of the school year.
Mr Sharma: I
said that I don't believe they would.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: You don't believe they would. Thank
you.
The Chair:
Thank you for taking the time to make a presentation before us
here this afternoon.
CAMBRIAN COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from Cambrian College of Applied
Arts and Technology. Good afternoon, Dr Marsh, and welcome to the
committee.
Dr Frank
Marsh: Mr Chair and committee members, it's indeed a
pleasure to be able to speak to you today about Bill 132. My
particular focus will be around the degrees for college students
and ministerial consent.
As you can appreciate, in a
knowledge-based economy, the importance of lifelong learning for
college students is paramount to those of us who run institutions
and to our graduates. What we see currently in the Ontario
college system is a system that does not in fact provide
progressive certification for people beyond their initial
graduation at the diploma level. What they need is new paths to
be able to achieve the new learning that they wish.
What our graduates tell us is
that their progression is essentially in specialized fields, in
the supervision of people. After being out in the field for a
period of time, they either become supervisors of specialists or
in fact own their own companies.
What industry tells us is
that they are essentially missing within many of their
organizations the skills of project management, the skills of
people management, the skills of business management at the entry
level.
An applied degree at a
college is applied-based and generally not theory-based, and many
of the applied degrees that have been introduced across this
country and throughout the world focus on some business
knowledge, some human resource knowledge, the specialty studies
and an applied research project. These address the requirements
of our college graduates as they perceive their progressive
certification, and of one of the gaps which industry sees in
making itself competitive.
1600
On the current Canadian
scene, in Alberta, applied degrees were brought in some six years
ago. That was expanded just two years ago to allow selected
colleges and selected programs to offer applied degrees. In
British Columbia, through the British Columbia Institute of
Technology and through the establishment of university colleges,
which were essentially colleges which were extended, applied
degrees were made available to college students, so they too have
progressive certification. In Atlantic Canada, through the
University College of Cape Breton, through the Marine Institute
of Memorial University, and through an arrangement between the
New Brunswick college system and UNB, applied degrees are
available to college students.
In Ontario it's a mixed bag.
Without having degree-granting status, colleges cannot offer
applied degrees, as you know. In many cases the arrangements that
were attempted to be developed between Ontario universities and
colleges have not borne fruit. In fact, in our own case we have
arrangements outside the province for our students to get the
type of degrees they need. These discussions have been
progressive. The arrangements have been useful and fruitful for
our students, but it's time to bring these degrees home so that
the students do not have to incur the cost of moving outside the
province or have to study over a longer period of time through
distance education to obtain theses credentials that they so
rightly need and want.
The impact, then, on
students: a student who graduates with an applied degree from one
of the other provinces and who applies to a multinational company
has essentially a better opportunity than a student in Ontario.
They bring additional credentials to the table when they apply,
and for the most part an employer will look at not only the
credentials that you have but the ability and the further
credentials that you bring which will allow you to broaden your
impact and your service to the corporation. Students in Alberta
have it through their degrees. Students in BC have it. Ontario
students don't. They're limited by virtue of not having the
ability to get applied degrees.
If we were to look at it from
a global context, Ontario students who apply to work with
multinational corporations are restricted from being able to do
cross-border work in Europe and in the US and North America
because of the certification that we give. In the international
context, if you were to look at institutions like ours throughout
the world, in Europe, in North America, in Asia and in the Middle
East, the programs are reasonably similar for institutions of our size.
They have degree-granting capability. In fact, many of the
courses that they graduate from, with exactly the same standards
that we have in place now, have a bachelor of applied science.
What we are suggesting in Ontario is that we would add value to
the programs we offer to ensure that the standards will be even
greater and that the credential will be more powerful than those
in these areas.
If we are to recruit foreign
students, which many of us try to do throughout the world, the
first question is, "What's the credential that you offer? Is it
the degree as in the US? Is it the degree as in Europe? Is it the
degree as in Australia? Or is it the degree as in one of the
other provinces of Canada?" We have to say, "No, it's a diploma."
They ask, "How does that fit within the context of what we want
to have?" This is a very significant issue, particularly in the
Middle East. In the consultancy services, as we try to do work
with international corporations throughout the world, what we
find is that our credibility in many cases is determined by the
credentials that we give. So in fact what we are finding is that
our competitiveness in the world is being limited by a limitation
that's been established in legislation.
There's a further benefit,
and that is-and I go back to what an applied degree is, the
components and what it's like: some business, some HR, specialty
work in an applied field, and a research project.
Generally, applied research
leads to the development of some new process, some new prototype,
some enhancement for efficiency or some new development, some
product that can be manufactured. In the areas of the north,
where I live, in Sudbury, these are very important to building an
economy. They're very important to ensure that the resource-based
industries are as competitive as possible. They're very important
to try to sell these products on the world stage in order to
attract and develop the economy. Out of innovation generally
comes industry development. Out of innovation generally comes
economic development. Out of innovation generally comes economic
well-being.
I recommend to you that you
support, through Bill 132, a more open policy on the granting of
degrees at colleges. I concur that a quality assessment board
needs to be established in order to ensure that quality does not
slip. It is not the intention of those of us who wish to offer
degrees and to change some of the credentials and build on the
credentials that we've been giving for the last 35 years to see
any quality drop.
The second is a more open
policy on ministerial consents. Currently, we are limited when we
have arrangements with institutions outside of this
province-institutions, by the way, that have charters from the
provincial Legislatures of the provinces throughout this country,
institutions that are well recognized, institutions that rate
highly on the Maclean's list, for what that's worth. But when we
have arrangements like that, we cannot offer these programs in
Ontario; we have to send the students outside. I would suggest
that Bill 132 would address the issue of ministerial consents at
least to give greater applicability and greater opportunity for
those institutions that have charters from Legislatures outside
of this province to be allowed to offer programs in conjunction
with colleges in Ontario.
The Chair:
That leaves us about three minutes for questions. This time it
will be the NDP.
Ms Shelley Martel
(Nickel Belt): Thank you, Dr Marsh. Can you tell me,
would there be an additional cost to the college to implement a
degree-granting process?
Dr Marsh:
Cambrian's perspective on the types of degrees that it would want
to offer is really degrees that are on top of its current
credentials. So where it offers three-year programs, a further
year of study would be required in order to attain the
competencies of the applied degree, particularly bachelor of
technology, bachelor of applied communications, bachelor of
business administration and so on. The additional costs both to
the students and to the college would be the costs that would be
normal in extending a program by a year. The additional benefits
to the students, however, are remarkable.
What I would suggest to you
as well is that the additional revenue generation for the college
by virtue of having this credential from its other sources, like
its international consultancy, its attraction of students and so
on, would certainly be a factor that would reduce the cost to the
college.
Ms Martel:
So do you see that you would have to be hiring more professors to
be teaching that extra year?
Dr Marsh:
Obviously, yes.
Ms Martel:
Do you have a sense of what that cost would be to the college at
this point, if you were to extend your three-year programs to
four?
Dr Marsh: We
would look at it in a limited manner so that the types of degrees
we want to offer would be in very particular areas. I know a
couple would be particularly in the applied technologies.
Depending on our focus, many of the courses I've noticed here,
the business HR and so on, are already offered by the college. It
is in the specialty areas that you would have to do some
additional hirings.
Ms Martel:
But you can't give me an estimate right now-
Dr Marsh: I
wouldn't be able to give you an estimate of the number offhand.
It would depend on the degree and the broadness of it.
Ms Martel:
Have you had any discussions with the government about who's
going to assume that cost? Do you assume it is going to be
you?
Dr Marsh:
I've been involved in this one in another area, as you know.
There are two ways to do this. One is in some form of cost
recovery for the final year, which may not be extensive, through
a tuition arrangement. The second obviously is that for a student
studying a year longer in a program, one would anticipate there
would be some government funds to cover off part of that in the
normal manner that it would be for any other program that you
would do.
Ms Martel:
Have you had any of that kind of discussion with the government
to this point?
Dr Marsh: Yes. They're aware that
there are costs involved in extending programs. We are currently
in the arrangement for a bachelor of applied science in nursing.
I think they recognize that by adding the extra year, there's
additional cost and they have covered it.
1610
Ms Martel:
They might have for that particular program, I guess, generally
speaking, because this is going to now happen at a number of
institutions. In your discussions with the government about the
nursing program, have they given you any indication of what they
plan to do on a broader scale with respect to the other colleges
that will be impacted by this initiative?
Dr Marsh:
Not at this point.
The Chair:
Thank you very much for taking the time to come down from Sudbury
and make a presentation. We appreciate it.
Dr Marsh:
Thank you.
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from Canadore College of Applied
Arts and Technology.
CANADORE COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY
The Chair:
Dr. McTiernan, good afternoon and welcome to the committee.
Dr Timothy
McTiernan: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I too would
like to add my support to the provision for applied degrees in
Bill 132, and the focus of my comments will be in support of
applied degrees.
Our view at Canadore
College in North Bay is that applied degrees will meet the needs
of Ontario students. They'll also contribute to the knowledge and
skills base needed to support regional and sectoral economic
growth and competitiveness in Ontario.
Fundamentally, there seem
to be three principles that underlie Bill 132: the principle of
relevance in post-secondary educational programming and
certification; the increasing choice in opportunities for
students in their courses of studies and in their ultimate
certification; and safeguards for students through assurance of
program quality. the bill also speaks to safeguards in terms of
the management of funds that are allocated for student financial
support.
The bill in that sense
addresses the need for Ontario's post-secondary education system
to remain current and competitive with international
post-secondary programs. The previous speaker spoke well to that.
It also speaks to the need for colleges to adjust and modify
program contents and standards to best equip Ontario college
graduates to succeed in a changing workplace that operates in a
global economy-and the previous speaker also spoke well to
that-particularly the situation we're seeing now with the
transferability of jobs and the transferability of positions
across companies that operate internationally as much as
nationally, and interprovincially as much as provincially.
There is also an ongoing
need, by colleges and by government in this bill, to ensure that
students can be assured of quality and relevance in their chosen
programs to essentially pay back the investment that students
make in terms of their own time, money and energy in those
programs. In that regard, colleges serve students, business and
industry, and our regional and community economic development
priorities in a number of ways.
Colleges serve students
with access and foundation programs, with skills and trades
training, with professional and paraprofessional training, and
with high-tech and process-intensive training. As colleges adjust
to new workplace realities with professional and
paraprofessional, high-tech and process-intensive training and
deal with industry in terms of just-in-time training and a
broader need for applied research partnerships and, in doing so,
deal with regional and community economic development as an
active part of the planning and development process in
communities and regions and with economic sectors, colleges, in
all of this work, ought to and need to remain internationally and
nationally competitive.
The provision for applied
degrees in Bill 132 will allow Ontario colleges to remain
competitive and, bluntly, to regain a competitive edge over those
provinces that have already worked with and instituted applied
degree arrangements.
The legislation appears to
be carefully measured to allow for careful implementation of
applied degrees, which is appropriate. The legislation doesn't,
in and of itself, speak to the urgency of work in this area but
there are a number of factors and situations-again, I'm echoing
the previous speaker-which speak to the urgency. I'll use three
examples from our own college to underline the benefit and the
value of a made-in-Ontario applied degree that can work
effectively in colleges, whether they're in the urban or
non-urban parts of the province.
Canadore College and a
number of other colleges in Ontario have had a long-standing
arrangement with New Hampshire College, about to be the
University of Southern New Hampshire, where three-year graduates
can go to New Hampshire College and, with two further semesters
of study in a co-op program, obtain a bachelor's degree in
tourism and hospitality administration. I don't know the precise
title of the degree, but that's what they end up with.
When the arrangement was
originally made, it was a nice paper arrangement with little
practical import. We had a couple of students a year go to New
Hampshire and get the benefits of the articulation agreement.
Currently, we have 30-plus graduates from Canadore College's last
cohort of three-year diploma graduates studying at New Hampshire
for an applied degree in tourism and hospitality. It's an example
of growth in the use of an arrangement that benefits the
students. It doesn't benefit the Ontario economy, largely because
of the structure of the degree program and the benefits
derived.
The degree program involves
a long co-op placement with the Marriott chain in the United
States. The consequence of that is that most of our graduates end
up with high-paying jobs in the hospitality sector in the United
States-good for
continental tourism, not particularly good for the development of
the Ontario tourism sector. As we work with our community and
regional partners to build the capacity in the hospitality sector
in Ontario, the opportunity for applying for and being considered
for an applied degree in that area would go immeasurably toward
us meeting our community and regional development role as well as
our student development role.
A second example from areas
that we specialize in: we do training in the aerospace sector. In
recent discussions with representatives of the aerospace sector,
the individual who was representing the Ontario organization we
were having talks with identified a gap between engineering
degrees and the technology diplomas that we provide that's
essentially a knowledge-intensive but technology-intensive gap,
and spoke to the value of having some credential, some
certification that might fill that gap and meet the burgeoning
needs of the aerospace sector. Again, the provision in this bill
for applied degrees provides an opportunity for looking at that
blend between the knowledge and theory and the technical skills
required in new positions in a new economy.
To pick up on a theme that
the previous presenter had, in an international context we've had
one instance in the past year of a situation where not being able
to provide a degree or not being degree-granting has affected our
ongoing work on an international project. We were the lead
college for a consortium of Canadian colleges, Ontario, BC and
Alberta colleges working on a project in Thailand throughout the
second half of the 1990s. It was essentially taking curriculum in
environmental and other resource areas and translating it and
modifying it for use in a Thai institute of technology
CIDA-funded project.
At the end of that project,
and a host of related projects last year, there was a conference
in Thailand to look at follow-up opportunities. We were a key
part of the conference. Our Thai partner was very polite and very
firm in saying to us that they liked the job we'd done but they
no longer considered us a vital or a significant partner and they
were happier to deal with the BC member of the consortium that
was a degree-granting institution because they had just attained
degree-granting status and they saw their partnership base
shifting.
I use those three examples
from a small college not in an urban centre as compelling reasons
why, for us, access to an applied degree would complement very,
very well what we do well in our diplomas and certificate
programs and what we do well with Nipissing University, which is
adjacent to us, in some of our degree-completion arrangements
with Nipissing University. We see applied degrees as being good
for students but also good for regional economic development and
for us meeting our mandate in that regard. Thank you.
1620
The Chair:
Thank you. That leaves us about three minutes for questioning.
This time we lead from the government.
Mrs
Molinari: Thank you very much for your presentation.
It's interesting to hear a theme that's coming out, offering this
option and this choice for students, and it's good for regional
economic development and certainly for students being able to
access a greater possibility of having degrees. You talked about
your relationship with Thailand and not being considered as a
partner. When you started that discussion, were they aware that
Canadore College did not offer applied degrees? I know it's going
to give you more opportunities if your college applies for and is
granted applied degrees, and you see that as opening up
opportunities. Would you be able to go back to some of those whom
you've already made connections with and have good relationships
with to open up the doors of that partnership and that
possibility?
Dr
McTiernan: Yes. I think it would put us on a different
basis. Even if we were still in the development process for an
applied degree, having the ability to grant it would make a
difference. The project started at a time when the institute we
were working with in Thailand didn't have degree-granting status.
It started in the mid-1990s, when applied degrees were still a
discussion point rather than a matter of policy in the Ontario
government. So the initial stages of the development of the
relationship were quite constructive and positive.
The gap now is in the
perception, and this time last year of course the bill hadn't
been framed and hadn't been introduced. The gap was in the
perception that we were not moving at the same rate that the
institute was into degree-granting and into some of the benefits
that will arise from that: the engagement with the industry
sectors that we will have to work with and will work with in the
implementation of applied degrees, and the opportunity for
applied research that comes out of that as well. This institute
was beginning to develop a strong focus on research and on
industry relationships in the research area.
The Chair:
Thank you very much. We appreciate your taking the time to come
all the way down to make a presentation before us today.
CONESTOGA COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND
TECHNOLOGY
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from Conestoga College of Applied
Arts and Technology. John Tibbits, good afternoon and welcome to
the committee.
Dr John
Tibbits: Thank you very much. First of all, I want to
congratulate the government on this initiative. I think there'll
be a tremendous benefit for the citizens of Ontario as
individuals, and also for the economy.
I'm going to refer to two
papers. I wrote a paper, dated September 1999, Ontario's
Post-Secondary System: A Vision for the Global Economy, that was
submitted to our minister and widely circulated throughout the
province. There was a consensus on this paper among the 25
colleges. I'm also going to refer to a speech that I gave in
April of this year which is called Applied Degrees for College
Programs. In the main paper I talked briefly about private universities, but my intention
today is to focus on applied degrees. I will refer to both
papers.
I'd like to start with the
key assumptions here. I think it's important in that the key
assumptions are in the main paper, the September 1999 paper, and
I will quickly go through them. I'll just go through the bullet
points.
I think we've reached a
point in our society when the expertise of our people is really
our most valuable resource economically. That wasn't the case
when I graduated from university in the 1960s. I don't think that
was the case at the time. You could train an elite. It's becoming
clearer and clearer that countries and regions that can train and
educate a larger percentage of their population to higher levels
will be more competitive. I know in the 1960s you could train the
elite in a theoretical university education and that was good;
that was a good thing. Now we need to get more people trained to
higher levels.
Also, to maximize the
quality of our human resources we must make it easier for people
to have opportunities for continuous learning and professional
retooling. It's very difficult now for college students to move
and get upgraded in a university program. In fact, it's extremely
difficult.
Not only that, what's
happening now is that jobs are changing. Look in our area of K-W,
Canada's technology triangle. There are so many more high-tech
jobs; there is so much more advanced manufacturing. When I
arrived in 1987, and I'm in my 14th year, you could get a good
job out of high school. You could get a good job using the
unionized workplace in, let's say, one of the manufacturing
companies. Very few of these places, like Toyota and Linamar and
others, are hiring people out of high school. They're expecting
higher levels of training and education and these jobs are
requiring a more sophisticated education.
Next point: one of the
problems is to ensure a strong pool of talent in these new fields
of study. We must provide people with credentials commensurate
with the knowledge and skills required to achieve them, otherwise
people will have little motivation to choose these fields. I'll
talk about that in a moment. We also know we're faced with
massive skills shortages, whether it's IT, advanced manufacturing
or the trades. I know in our area the number one barrier to
economic growth in the K-W, Guelph, Cambridge area is skills
shortages.
I think it's quite obvious
why you might have that. We have a system that recognizes that
the best thing for a high school student to do is to go on to
university because that's where you get the degree. That's where
the currency of the realm is, in the degree, and I'll make it
very clear. I think we have wonderful universities-in our area
alone we have three of the best in Canada-but I'm not sure the
degree is the only credential we should be recognizing.
I want to talk about why,
from a student perspective, I think we should be moving toward
applied degrees, tying into those assumptions I talked about
earlier. First of all, college students who wish to obtain a
baccalaureate don't get the credit they deserve right now. It is
very difficult for our students, and I can tell you that some of
our programs are tougher than some of the university programs.
I'm not saying all, I'm just saying some. I can give you the
example of our robotics program: cut-off mark, 88%. Try to move
into a university in Ontario and get equivalent credit. It can't
be done. I can speak with some authority. I've been on the board
at Laurier for six years. I have some idea of how the
universities work.
The applied degrees would
give colleges and their students greater prestige and academic
credibility. Not only that, it would be greater justice for them.
It would also make the baccalaureate more accessible. For
instance, take a university like Laurier, where to get a BBA you
have to pass calculus. There are a lot of CEOs in our community
who do not have calculus and they're doing very well. There's
such a heavy emphasis on the theoretical at the universities that
it's not fair to some people who may be much more practically
focused and yet can't obtain the theoretical degree.
Applied degrees would give
greater value to vocational, practical training. We have a unique
system in Ontario, but not unique in a sense of being positive.
It's really a disgrace that in this province you cannot get a
degree for applied learning. Look at Germany, look at the British
system with polytechnic institutes. That's the direction we
should be going in.
You can take a bunch of
sociology and psychology courses and have a degree; you could
come to Conestoga and take advanced courses in math, physics and
robotics and only get a diploma. The reason that becomes
important is that some companies won't promote unless you have a
degree, and there is the international. That is a factor. But
never mind international; just locally, at Toyota to be a shop
floor supervisor you have to have a degree.
You could get a degree
with, as I've said, a bunch of general arts courses-I'm not
saying anything is wrong with that; I think the liberal arts are
excellent-but our students are not getting recognized. We have a
lot of people in Ontario who I think are going off and doing
degrees in anything because they know that's the currency, rather
than coming to a college, rather than going into trades. They
believe there's more prestige in that.
I think it also would be a
factor as far as fees. The fees would be less in applied degrees.
I'm not saying the fees would be the same as they are now, but
they certainly would be less than university fees. It would also
be easier for the college to attract fundraising dollars. Some
major companies in this province, in this country, will not
provide capital donations to colleges. They will only provide
them to universities.
1630
I think that
applied-degree-granting status would also encourage more and
better students to apply for such programs. One of our big
issues: our robotics program has a 100% job-placement rate, our
electronics programs have 100% job-placement rates, yet there's a
shortage of robotics technologists in our area; there's a
shortage of telecommunications, wireless people. Our issue
is that we can't attract enough, and we can't attract enough
because of the parents. We've done a study in our community, by
the way, and there's no question-I can show you the data, that
students, parents and teachers believe that the degree is the
currency of the realm.
I also know that employers
are asking for students with higher levels of applied education
and training for these jobs. Why would someone go for four years
at Conestoga, another year, and come out with a diploma? If we
expect people to have more and more advanced training, they're
going to expect to have proper credentials for it. There's no
question also that programs that have degree status will generate
graduates who are better prepared for continuous education and
also further education. It will allow us to partner on a much
more equal footing with the universities. It's very difficult now
to partner with three-year programs.
Why shouldn't Ontario's
post-secondary students have the same kinds of access and
opportunities as other students have in Canada and the rest of
the world? Our robotics coordinator, by the way, in the last two
years has been out in BC helping BCIT develop a robotics program.
I mean, this is ridiculous. We've lost him for two years because
they want his expertise and we will have our students going out
there to finish their robotics degree in BC.
This case for applied
degrees, by the way, is not new. One of the reasons I didn't
update this paper of September 1999-this has been a long story.
When colleges were set up, there was no question that the
universities wanted the college system to be lesser. They did not
want it to be an equal partnership. Therefore it was focused in a
much different way. If you look at the Ontario Jobs and
Investment Board report and also the Pitman report, No Dead Ends,
it is very clear that the case for applied degrees is very
strong. What's going to be happening, and you can see it now with
the problems we're having with nursing collaborative partnerships
at the universities, is that more and more professions are
requiring a degree for entering into practice. Nursing will
require one by 2005, and I can tell you it's going to be very
difficult to produce the number of nurses you'd need through
collaborative university partnerships. It's just not going to
happen. So we need to be looking in a number of areas, like
nursing, and it'll probably happen in other areas like social
work. We should be looking at ensuring that in vocational areas
we can broaden the scope and allow colleges to offer applied
degrees. I think it makes sense, it's good for the economy and
it's good for individuals. It's an issue of fairness and justice.
Thank you.
The Chair:
Thank you very much. That allows us about two and a half minutes
for a question from the Liberal caucus.
Mr Dave Levac
(Brant): I appreciate the opportunity and I thank you
for the presentation. There seems to be a plethora of colleges
approaching us, saying that this is a good idea. I probably
support the theory and concept.
I want to go to something
you alluded to that I believe is probably a bigger problem that
we need to face, and that is convincing people, particularly
young people, that skills of the trades are the area they should
be considering, beyond just the somewhat myopic view of
universities being the be-all and end-all. For instance, in my
community the Brant Skills Development Group was formed in order
to form partnerships with business, educators, colleges and
universities to try to educate students before they start making
the choices they're making, particularly at the high school
level. I've convinced them to go down to the elementary level. Do
you believe that the government should be supporting programs
like that in order to help the skills development area grow in
nature and stature?
Dr
Tibbits: I think we need both a provincial and national
strategy to promote skills. It's that big an issue. I think it's
been there for a long time and it's becoming a more and more
problematic issue because the economy is going so quickly. But I
also think that credentialing is very important. It's very hard
to convince a university that they should take electricians and
move them up through electrotechnology to become electrical
engineers. But if you have the proper credentialing, I think what
we could do is integrate the trades into applied degree programs.
But I do agree with you that we need a provincial and a national
strategy to promote skills. There's a huge problem, and you're
right, with the parent's, student's and teacher's perception. We
did a study in our community about a year ago. We did focus
groups, independent third party, interviewed parents, and we had
the advantage; they knew it was a one-way mirror. But it was
incredible, the perception they had of trades.
Mr Levac:
We would support that and look forward to the provincial
government helping, because the federal government has given
money to this particular group.
The second area I'd ask you
a quick question on-
The Chair:
Very quick.
Mr Levac:
It will be very quick, Mr Chairman. Laurier Brant is an outreach
in Brantford of Laurier campus.
Dr
Tibbits: Yes, I am aware of Laurier Brant.
Mr Levac:
Laurier Brant and Mohawk College have formed a partnership. Is
that another area which you would encourage and endorse with
regard to the granting of degrees?
Dr
Tibbits: Where you can get co-operative partnerships, I
think that's a good idea. But I think we have to be careful
because the university thrust with Laurier is a liberal arts
thrust. I think we also need to put a greater emphasis on the
applied side. I think an applied degree is quite different than a
theoretical degree. Certainly, I would encourage collaboration,
although if you look at Alberta and British Columbia, what
happened is both governments at some point in time declared that
there were going to be transfer mechanisms. It is going to be
very hard to get the universities on their own to come up with
collaboration where credits are accepted. It's very, very
difficult.
The Chair: Thank you, Dr Tibbits,
for coming before us here today.
GEORGE BROWN COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND
TECHNOLOGY
The Chair:
Our next presentations will be from George Brown College. Good
afternoon, welcome to the committee.
Mr Michael
Cooke: My name is Michael Cooke and I am the
vice-president, academic excellence and innovation, at George
Brown College. Joining me in this presentation is Colin Lock,
who's the manager of process development for Visteon Automotive
Systems. I hope the members of the committee, like me, are
impressed with the high degree of unanimity among the colleges on
this. The only other thing we agree on with such unanimity is the
fact that the government should be giving us more money for our
programs.
Thank you very much for
this opportunity to speak to you today about Bill 132. We want to
express our strong support for this legislation, which will give
colleges of applied arts and technology the authority to confer a
baccalaureate degree in applied areas of study.
At George Brown College, we
help prepare students for careers in today's and tomorrow's
knowledge economy. Our approach is to provide relevant,
high-quality learning experiences in preparation for careers in
employer sectors where we have expertise and strong partnerships,
sectors where employment is not only readily available today, but
promises to be so over the long term, sectors where employees are
integral to shaping the sector's future.
At George Brown we are
currently focusing on the sectors of financial services, graphic
design, community services and health sciences, hospitality and
tourism, building technologies, information technologies and
microelectronics manufacturing.
Our college plans to
implement programs resulting in a baccalaureate degree in the
applied areas of advanced microelectronics, financial services,
graphic design, American sign language interpreting and
orthotics/prosthetics.
To illustrate the need, let
me cite the example of microelectronics manufacturing for you.
Electronics, as you may well know, is the largest industry in the
world. Microelectronics is a foundational technology that
underpins and drives numerous industries-everything from
telecommunications to helpful projects such as hearing aids.
Every day we experience microelectronics and we make use of them,
whether it's to operate a sophisticated plant or simply to
remotely open our garage door.
Interestingly, in the auto
industry today more cost is attributed to electronic components
than to metal. That's a big change and it's an indicator of how
the world is changing and how the workplace needs to change to
keep up. Similarly, at George Brown College we have changed and
we must continue to change in order to prepare graduates not only
for the present, but for the emerging job markets. No other
institution in Canada currently offers an applied
microelectronics manufacturing program delivered in live
manufacturing facilities such as we have at George Brown.
More than 25 corporate
partners have worked with us to develop our advanced
microelectronics centre at George Brown College. In this centre,
students truly experience the industry. They don't just read
about it or hear about it or see it but they experience it in a
very hands-on manner. This helps students make good decisions
about entering the field and gives the industry the opportunity
to get to know them and their potential.
This is a major
distinguishing characteristic of the applied baccalaureate degree
educational experience: integration on the ground where it is
happening.
1640
George Brown College is
also the first college member of the Centre for Microelectronics
Assembly and Packaging consortium, a research consortium
involving four universities, six microelectronics companies and
George Brown College. What we are doing, as I think this example
illustrates, and what the universities are doing are
complementary, not competitive or redundant. There is not only
room but a necessity for both. I could tell you similar stories,
if I had time, about each of the other employer sectors that we
are focusing on.
As you heard from John
Tibbits a few minutes ago, baccalaureate degrees in applied areas
of study open new doors for many new students. As a result, a
greater number and a broader range of students will complete
degree-level studies. This will strengthen Ontario's economy in a
whole number of ways. The programs will be highly responsive to
employer needs and to the job market. They will be skills-based
and prepare graduates for the greater technical demands of the
knowledge economy. In the end, more students will be equipped to
work in our rapidly evolving knowledge-based economy. The
introduction of baccalaureate degrees in applied areas means more
student choice and more options for them, more market-current
education, more employment-ready graduates, more appropriate
recognition of their credentials and smoother transition to
further studies.
I'd like to ask my
colleague Colin Lock from Visteon to give you an industry
perspective on the matter of baccalaureate degrees in applied
areas.
Mr Colin
Lock: Good evening. My name is Colin Lock. I'm the
process development manager for Visteon automotive systems. We
manufacture electronic modules for a variety of automotive
manufacturers. We end up hiring the graduates from these
programs. We fully support Bill 132 allowing colleges the ability
to grant baccalaureate degrees in applied areas.
Some of the themes I'm
going to talk about have been spoken about here already. Real
market growth in electronics is expected to average 19% this
year, with automotive growth about 16%. There is a local and
worldwide shortage of skilled workers. I personally screened over
500 resumés last week looking for five additional people.
Colleges have proven to be particularly responsive and adaptive
to meeting our requirements for this skilled workforce. Jointly, industry
and George Brown College have co-developed surrogate
manufacturing facilities, practical relevant courses and strong
theoretical courses to meet current and future requirements.
The truth about
manufacturing is that industry does not compete on a worldwide
level playing field. Our competition pays significantly lower
labour costs than we do. What this means is that simple products
that can be easily assembled are shipped overnight to low-labour
facilities. What is keeping us competitive right now is that the
low-labour countries do not as yet have the specialized complex
knowledge and training to produce difficult, higher-technology
products. We are using this competitive advantage in knowledge
and education to offset the disadvantage we have in labour costs.
This is a very fleeting and temporary advantage because the
knowledge base and experience is increasing at a frightening rate
in so-called low-labour-cost countries. What is difficult to do
today becomes ordinary to do tomorrow.
By partnering with colleges
and universities, this enables us to maintain and increase our
knowledge and skill and remain competitive. Colleges have been
particularly adept at addressing the rapidly changing industry
requirements.
I'm just going to pull some
things from my pocket which I carry all the time. A few years ago
a pager was not commonplace. I have my personal digital
assistant, which wasn't that commonplace last year. Even for a
simple thing such as getting into my car, I have a remote
keyless. Even to start my car, my key has a transponder in here
which is keyed to a module inside my car. If I don't have the
right key, my car won't start. None of these existed five years
ago. The complexity that's required to develop and manufacture
these is sufficient, I believe, to meet degree requirements. If
students are not offered the opportunity to have a degree, this
will basically shut them out of certain job opportunities.
Earlier a gentleman
mentioned that Toyota required a degree for shop floor
supervisor. That is our requirement as well. To operate the
equipment that manufactures something like this-you can't see it
very well, but it's quite miniature-requires a degree as well. If
you don't have a degree, in our company you will simply not be
promoted past a certain level and you will be ineligible to work
in what we call foreign service or in foreign manufacturing
sites. This is unfortunate, because the skill level is definitely
there, but it is a company standard that a degree is mandatory.
It is a recognized company standard.
Suffice it to say that we
support the legislation that allows colleges to grant
baccalaureate degrees. Speaking from industry, we require this
because that's how we are going to remain competitive. If we
don't do it, I personally am going to be out of a job without
skilled workers.
The Chair:
Thank you, gentlemen. That leaves us about a minute and a
half.
Ms Marilyn Churley
(Toronto-Danforth): I have my transponder here and my
telephone, which should be off in here, shouldn't it?
The Chair:
It absolutely should.
Ms
Churley: I see I have one missed call. I finally got rid
of my pager because I felt like I was on a leash all the time.
There are days, I must tell you, when I feel like I'm going to
become a Luddite. These have their advantages but they also, as
I'm sure many of you understand, keep us working 24 hours a day.
Having said that, I think your demonstration of how advanced
we've become in the last five years is quite good and implies as
well that we are just going to see many more advances over the
next five years.
I wanted to ask you about
the costs attached to this. I believe my colleague who was here
earlier, Shelley Martel, did as well. Perhaps you could address
this.
Mr Cooke:
I think the first point is that the costs of this kind of
education are cheaper than a degree through a university. For the
province, for the students, the cost is cheaper. As Colin has
pointed out in his example-and we could cite many others-the
opportunity for employment and advancement in employment is far
greater. In a medium- or long-term analysis, whatever additional
costs are involved, they will certainly be recouped over time and
make for more people who can pay taxes, more people who
contribute to the economy and to society generally and fewer
people are unemployed and so on.
Having said that, I think
Shelley Martel's earlier question was around the immediate costs
to the college.
Ms
Churley: Yes. I'm sorry, I should have specified.
Mr Cooke:
There are two answers. Obviously from a college perspective, if
we are offering additional programming we would hope that the
government either directly and/or, as we've already illustrated
in a number of our partnerships, in consort with other interested
partners will help raise additional funds for that. Even in a
worst-case scenario, what you would see is a shifting of
resources within the college to these areas of programming where
there's real demand for them and we would move investment away
from areas where there isn't the demand.
Ms
Churley: That's it?
The Chair:
Yes. We are overtime, I'm afraid. Thank you very much, Mr Cooke
and Mr Lock. I appreciate your bringing the industry perspective
into this debate as well.
1650
GEORGIAN COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from Georgian College. Good
afternoon, Mr Tamblyn, and welcome to the committee.
Mr Brian
Tamblyn: Thanks for the opportunity to speak to you
today about Bill 132. In the interest of time, I won't cover
everything in our presentation.
There have been private
colleges in Ontario for many years, and I believe this
competition has actually strengthened publicly funded colleges,
even during our current period of underfunding. I believe that
private universities
should be received in the same manner by publicly funded
universities. Ontario universities should be more than able to
stand up to this competitive challenge. However, it will be
important for the government to monitor private universities from
a consumer protection perspective, as has been provided for in
the legislation. Students investing in their futures and in the
province's future must not have their education jeopardized by a
lack of government accountability and control over these private
institutions.
Georgian College has been
able to develop a significant number of articulation agreements
with universities. In fact, over 40 such agreements with over 20
institutions are currently in place. They have helped create a
more seamless flow into future educational opportunities for
Georgian's graduates who wish to obtain a degree.
These arrangements exist
across Canada, in the United States and throughout the world. The
only jurisdiction where articulation agreements are notably
lacking has been Ontario. After over 30 years of college
operations in the province, Ontario universities generally will
not fully recognize and acknowledge an Ontario college education
without students losing credit for at least one year of their
college diploma.
The result of this has been
that almost all of Georgian's graduates wishing to pursue a
degree with full credit for their college diploma must leave
Ontario. The proposed legislation will allow private universities
into Ontario, a number of which have already shown an interest in
working with Georgian to create opportunities for our graduates,
granting full credit for their college studies. We believe the
establishment of private universities in Ontario as a competitive
influence on the public universities will indirectly encourage
the public universities to more fully recognize the needs of the
hundreds of thousands of community college graduates seeking to
further their education, with better recognition of their prior
learning experience.
There are two issues the
committee may wish to clarify in this regard. The bill refers to
the establishment of private universities in the province but
does not clearly define them. We believe it is important that
public universities from foreign jurisdictions be included in
this definition; we assume that private foreign universities are
already covered. This may occur in very rare circumstances, and
obviously may need the minister's approval, but we have some
programs, such as professional golf management, where an
institution like Pennsylvania State University has the top
program in the world. We may wish to partner with an institution
like Pennsylvania State.
The second point of
clarification is with regard to the private universities
themselves and the role they may play in the province under this
legislation. Georgian already has articulated relationships with
private universities that allow the college's graduates to attend
the private foreign institution and complete a degree. These
private universities are often very specialized, offering the
highest quality degrees possible in niche programs aligned with
Georgian's own niche programs.
Georgian, it's graduates
and its private university partners are anxious to be able to
deliver the degree-completion activity at Georgian's campuses
when Bill 132 is enacted. We don't necessarily see the university
setting up an entire campus on their own, but we would see them
perhaps delivering the fourth year of a program on our
campus.
I can give you two
examples. We have the only aviation management program in the
province. Embry-Riddle, which is the world's leading aviation
university in the States, is interested in delivering a fourth
year at our campus. Again, our students would receive full credit
for their studies. Another example would be our automotive
marketing program, which is the only program in Canada. We're
partnered with Northwood University in the States, and they have
the only automotive marketing program in the United States and
are very tightly connected with the Big Three auto manufacturers.
They are interested in delivering a fourth year on our campus,
and we will be proceeding with that.
Georgian College also
welcomes the opportunity to grant applied degrees. Degrees are
the global currency of post-secondary education. Our graduates
are disadvantaged in many jurisdictions where a college diploma
is an unknown entity or is associated with inferior institute
diplomas. Like many colleges and universities, we recruit
students from around the world, and if you go around the world,
diplomas are typically associated with institutes. In most
countries these institutes would be a floor in a high-rise
building. They would be very poorly equipped and don't resemble
Ontario colleges in any way, shape or form.
Ontario's community
colleges play a critical role in providing a high-quality,
job-ready workforce that can compete in the global economy. The
competitive and responsive nature of Ontario's publicly funded
community college system positions it well to ensure that
progressive, degree-granting opportunities are seized and acted
upon for the benefit of the citizens of Ontario. This ability is
diminished when the educational certification that is granted to
them is not recognized.
The proposed legislation
goes beyond simply providing colleges with the ability to grant
applied degrees. Under this legislation, colleges may in some
circumstances be able to grant full baccalaureate degrees. This
initiative of the government is also fully supported by Georgian
College.
As Mr Dunlop knows,
Georgian serves a catchment area of over 30,000 square kilometres
in which there is no university. In this catchment area, the
proportion of the population with university degrees is
significantly below the provincial average. The lack of access to
a university is seen as a possible explanation for this
situation. We're very enthusiastic about exploring all avenues
that will be provided by this legislation to open up access to
degree-level post-secondary education opportunities to the over
660,000 people in our catchment area.
In our submission, we have
several wording concerns around inspection powers, financial aid
controls and accountability of the board of governors, but in
the interests of time, I won't go into those details.
In summary, Georgian
College supports the introduction of private universities and the
access this will bring for additional educational opportunities
for our graduates. Clarification about degree-completion
activities and access by foreign public universities is likely
required. We welcome the empowerment of colleges to deliver
applied degrees, and perhaps full degrees, in underserviced areas
of the province.
The Chair:
Thank you very much. That leaves a couple of minutes for
questioning from the government side.
Mrs
Molinari: It's evident from what you've said in your
presentation that you're fully supportive of the legislation
coming forth. I will certainly read some of the points you didn't
make and some of the areas on which you raised some concerns.
I want to respond to a
question in your presentation about foreign jurisdictions being
included in the definition. You say, "We assume that private,
foreign universities are already covered in the legislation." I
want to comment that this legislation is enabling and is not
restrictive of any institution that wants to set up. The quality
assessment board will be the body that will decide, based on a
number issues: student protection and certainly credibility of
the curriculum and the excellence of any curriculum that is
provided. Certainly the board will decide who gets to set up. I
just wanted to make sure it was clear that it's enabling
legislation rather than restrictive.
I appreciate some of the
comments you've made. Certainly I can see how a college that
covers such a large area with no university would benefit and be
able to offer more opportunities for students, which is what this
legislation is all about: offering more opportunities and making
it more flexible for students and for the adult learner. I
appreciate the comments you've made.
The Chair:
I appreciate your taking the time to come before us and make a
presentation today.
1700
SENECA COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from Seneca College. Good afternoon
and welcome to the committee.
Dr Stephen
Quinlan: Thank you, Mr Chair. I feel like I'm at college
day at the standing committee hearings, but it's our pleasure to
be here. My colleague Dr Anthony Tilly, our chief academic
officer, joins me for today's presentation.
Let me begin, honourable
members, by thanking you for this opportunity to share our views
on Bill 132. While there are several key elements addressed in
the bill, I realize that you are and will be hearing from a
number of presenters on this subject over the course of the next
few weeks. For that reason, I will not be discussing some of the
what I might call mundane issues, detailed issues of the bill,
either its specific language, sections or subsections. What I
would like to do is focus today on some of the issues which our
students are most concerned with: the issue of the applied degree
and the impact that it has on them and on the province in
general.
As many of you may know, I
am on record in support of applied degrees. During my remarks at
the Empire Club in May 1998, I advocated strongly for the applied
degree as one of the additional tools that help our graduates
excel and exceed in the global economies. This is in addition to
the tools already provided by colleges, tools such as high
academic standards, experiential learning opportunities, exposure
to leading-edge technology, faculty with industrial experience,
and program input from business leaders in all sectors of today's
economy.
The reality of today's
economy is that many companies-and you have heard from Colin and
Visteon this afternoon. Our global employers want the practical,
specialized training that Ontario colleges provide, but they also
seek employees with degrees.
Organizations such as the
chartered accountants' association and the Certified General
Accountants Association require a degree for professional
designation. As well, and I'm sure you may know this, many, if
not most, international airlines require a degree for co-op
pilots to fly commercially. I have a great deal of experience in
this area and indeed lost a contract worth millions of dollars to
Ontario as a result of our inability to offer a degree.
In many organizations,
promotion, as Colin said, beyond the entry level is frequently,
if not often, limited to degree holders. Anything that inhibits
an Ontario college graduate from maximum success in the workplace
works against Ontario's prosperity.
Since our creation just
over 30 years ago, Ontario colleges have been successful in
providing the depth and breadth of educational opportunity to
support the province's knowledge economy. Our strength in this
area has been recognized by both the students who have chosen our
programs and also by the employers who have hired our graduates.
In Seneca's case, 100% of our graduates from 46 of our programs
were employed within six months of graduation: programs such as
accounting and finance, computer engineering technology, and
business administration. I suggest that these graduates need
opportunities to move up in their organizations, and we see
applied degrees as an opportunity for them.
As world-class
institutions, our colleges need world-recognized degrees that
meet international standards and global expectations. The applied
degree grants that recognition for all potential employers to see
the stringent requirements that have been met in order to
graduate from a particular college program: a program, as you've
already heard from Mr Tibbits, that is equal to, if not greater
than, that of a baccalaureate degree.
In our response to the
consultation paper we received in April, we submitted the
following comments:
In order to be successful,
applied degree programs in the province of Ontario must be
market-driven, they must be innovative responses to
socio-economic demands, they must have appropriate recognition from
industry and the public at large, and they must demonstrate
portability in the global workplace.
Throughout Ontario's
college system there are numerous formal articulation agreements
with post-secondary institutions outside the province that
provide students with the opportunity to complete a degree. These
arrangements were signed in response to the growing demand from
students who were already seeking accreditation for their
diplomas but doing so on an individual basis. The name of Bill
132 itself suggests this is about student opportunities,
opportunities for choice and excellence in post-secondary
education, and the creation of publicly funded choices is a key
factor in keeping Ontario's students in Ontario by offering
educational opportunities equal to, if not superior than, those
offered by institutions south of the border and elsewhere in our
international community.
The issues of quality
control and regulated standards regarding curriculum, program
delivery, faculty qualifications that reflect industry standards
and the ability to grant globally recognized credentials are the
keys to the continuing success for Ontario's students. Therefore,
I must stress the significance of the role and membership of the
quality assessment board as described in this bill.
With regard to the quality
assessment board, membership should represent the full spectrum
of post-secondary education, with equal representation from
colleges and universities as well as from leaders from the
international business community, with members who appreciate the
direction in which Ontario's colleges of applied arts and
technology are moving.
I fully endorse the concept
of a quality assessment board and am confident that the board
will respect the principles of fair competition and equal access
in reviewing the applications from our colleges. All must be held
to the same standard of quality and accountability. Moreover,
whatever decisions the quality assessment board makes regarding
the programs to be given applied-degree-granting status, the
board must, first and foremost, look at the needs of students.
The programs chosen must make sense in terms of what an applied
degree will mean to those students. Applied-degree programs
should be chosen based on the beneficial impact for students with
respect to future opportunities, successes and meeting the demand
of industry.
In closing, it is my ardent
belief that the applied degree serves the very best interests of
our students and their future success in the 21st century as well
as the future success of Ontario as a leading player in global
markets. Applied degrees, in addition to giving students the
opportunity to complete their education in Ontario, will also
attract international partners and international students who
will make a significant contribution to our economy.
Seneca College as well as
Ontario colleges can and will provide the environment for
students to thrive. We look forward to the opportunity to
recognize their hard work and academic achievements with the
granting of an applied degree.
I thank you for your time
and interest.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, and that allows us about two minutes for a
question from the Liberal caucus.
1710
Mrs
Bountrogianni: Thank you and welcome. Over 18 years ago
I used to teach at your institution. I know it is still an
excellent institution.
I just want to make clear
that the Liberal caucus agrees with the government on this part
of the bill and applauds this move as needed.
I'll give you two concerns
that I've heard from stakeholder groups, mostly students. Number
one is, if there isn't enough funding for applied degrees in the
colleges, funding will be sought in other areas within that
college or colleges. Students are concerned that those diploma
programs will then be watered down. How would you address that
possibility?
Dr
Quinlan: I wouldn't necessarily agree with that
assumption. If you look at the cost to the students and to the
taxpayers of Ontario, at the moment a student would spend three
years in a college and three to four years in a university to get
a roughly similar qualification. The cost to students and the
cost to Ontario probably will be less, not greater, when measured
in absolute terms.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: The other concern I heard from the
students-although, in the end, they did support this part of the
bill, initially their concern was not the financial aspect but
just the prestige or lack of prestige for a diploma in comparison
with the applied degree. How have you probably already addressed
this in your institution?
Dr
Quinlan: Yes, I'd like to speak to that, if I may. I've
done an extensive amount of work in the international community.
Certainly in the global economies of the world today, the applied
degree has as much recognition-in fact, maybe more with some
employers-than the baccalaureate degree. In time, students who
benefit from the applied degree will have a much greater
appreciation than they do today, not having had the opportunity
for that experience.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: My question was in comparison to the
diploma. I agree with you there.
Dr
Quinlan: With regards to an Ontario diploma now?
Mrs
Bountrogianni: To the lack of status or prestige of
having a diploma.
Dr
Quinlan: Different students will have different
expectations based on their desire and based on their ability. I
don't believe the diploma will be watered down in Ontario.
Notwithstanding that, if they go to work for an international
corporation or in an international environment, the degree will
be more attractive to them.
The Chair:
Thank you both for coming before us here this afternoon.
REDEEMER UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from Redeemer University College,
as it has very recently come to be renamed. Good afternoon, welcome to
the committee.
Dr Justin
Cooper: It is a pleasure to be here. We're very pleased
to have this opportunity to respond to the legislation that has
been tabled by Minister Cunningham. We confirm the intent of this
bill to extend the choices available to students in
post-secondary education in Ontario while ensuring academic
excellence and institutional accountability. We would like to
raise some points that we believe are relevant to the terms of
the proposed legislation.
You'll notice our brief is
organized with a number of statements in the executive summary.
These are expanded upon in the subsequent section. I'll begin my
remarks on page 3 of the brief with respect to the equality of
access for all students, which is the comment that we would like
to make on the section that deals with loans and awards.
Equality of access for
students to loans, grants and awards, irrespective of whether
they attend a public or private institution, should be an
essential feature of all provincial student assistance programs.
At the present time, it is not. While it may be defensible to
vary the assistance available depending on the type of
institution attended-vocational school, college or university-we
believe it's unacceptable to discriminate against students who
choose to attend institutions whose operations are funded
privately by deeming such students to be ineligible for certain
provincial student assistance programs, as is now the case
We believe the criteria
should be student need and not institutional mode of funding.
Since the Lieutenant Governor in Council has, in the bill, wide
discretion in prescribing terms and conditions for student loans,
grants and awards, we believe a clause should be included in the
act stating this principle of equality of access for all Ontario
students regardless of whether they attend a publicly or
privately funded institution.
The remainder of our
remarks have to do with the policy of ministerial consents and
degree granting. I continue on page 4 of our brief.
With respect to the names
to be used by institutions that grant degrees, the use of the
name "university," we believe, should be reserved for
institutions whose primary purpose is providing university-level
degree programs in a range of disciplines in the arts and
sciences, together with supporting some research mandate. This
usage follows academic practice in all other jurisdictions in
Canada, and we believe should be noted in the act. This will
protect the integrity and credibility of these important social
institutions and the expectations of prospective students,
faculty and project partners in industry and commerce.
As an example, a minimum of
eight disciplines spanning the humanities, social sciences and
sciences is one benchmark of which we are aware for defining what
constitutes a sufficient range of degree programs.
With respect to ministerial
consents, since the maintenance of appropriate institutional and
academic standards essential for excellence is really tantamount
to accreditation, the minister should seek the advice of the
quality assessment board in framing any regulations relevant to
such standards. These are referred to at various points in the
act. While the act consistently speaks of ministerial consent,
what we believe is at stake in the legislation is the
accreditation of new institutions and new academic programs for
which appropriate standards will have to be developed, in
addition to the granting of consent for out-of-province
institutions to operate in Ontario. We believe that the act would
be strengthened by referring to accreditation and by requiring
the minister to seek the advice of the assessment board in making
regulations related to these kinds of standards.
On to page 5: I'd just like
to highlight some remarks in relation to the composition of the
Post-secondary Education Quality Assessment Board.
Consistent with standard
academic practice, the assessment board should be made up of
academically qualified persons and should include representatives
of universities, private universities and community colleges.
Ministry representatives could also be included. But the point
about academically qualified persons is that this board is going
to be asked to make very significant academic judgments.
Since the assessment board
will in fact be the accrediting body for all new degree-granting
institutions and degree programs in Ontario, constituting it in a
manner which will ensure the maintenance of standards of
excellence will be of utmost importance, we believe, and should
be spelled out in greater detail in the act.
Moving on to page 6: just
to note in section 8 that while it may be advisable to use the
same assessment board for all post-secondary institutions and
degree programs, there are different criteria which must be used,
depending on what type of institution or program is being
considered for accreditation. We would just note that given the
current proposed legislation, the assessment board will be
dealing with the accreditation of new Ontario-based institutions
as well as existing institutions and out-of-province
institutions. It will be dealing with institutional
accreditation, we understand, as well as single program
accreditation, with university degree programs as well as applied
degree programs and with undergraduate as well as graduate-level
institutions and programs. Clearly it will be a large undertaking
to develop sufficient criteria of excellence for all these
different types of assessment. We would just note that, as a
private university in the province, we would be pleased if we
would be able to participate in this process.
One topic we also would
like to comment on is the issue of for-profit institutions. We
believe that for-profit institutions should be excluded from
receiving consent or accreditation to operate as a private
university or degree-granting institution, as is the case in
other jurisdictions, as we understand it. In the United States,
for example, for-profit, or proprietary institutions, as they are
also known, are ineligible for accreditation by the regional
accrediting associations, which are the primary accrediting
bodies. For-profit institutions, especially if they use only part-time instructors and
have no research mandate, fulfill in some residual way the task
of disseminating knowledge but do so in isolation from the other
essential function, we believe, of an educational institution,
namely, the advancement of knowledge. Such a departure from the
traditional mission of the university does not, in our view,
promote excellence, and neither will it, over the long term, do
so.
1720
Finally, to reinforce the
point with which we began respecting government funding, if
persons or institutions receiving ministerial consent are deemed
ineligible for government funding, as is presently the case, this
should not be construed, we would like to emphasize, to limit the
eligibility for awards, grants or loans on the part of students
who attend or faculty who teach at such institutions. The current
policy of not providing operating or capital funding to new
private universities is clear and its not at issue here. However,
it does not follow from this policy that provincial assistance
programs for citizens of Ontario, whether they be students or
faculty, should not apply to people if they attend or work at a
private university. Such inappropriate discrimination is unfair.
Rather, as we mentioned before, equality of access should be
maintained in all such programs. We believe that if these
principles, the various ones that we've mentioned, were to be
applied, it would improve and enhance the contents of this
legislation and improve our post-secondary institution system in
Ontario so that our students will have greater choice and we will
maintain excellence.
The Chair:
This time the questioning will go to the NDP. Ms Churley, you've
got about three minutes.
Ms
Churley: Thank you very much for your presentation. It's
very interesting, helpful information.
On page 6, when you talk
about for-profit institutions, can you elaborate a bit on that
section and, more specifically, what you're talking about there
as compared to the private universities? What's the difference?
Can you give some examples of for-profit institutions in the US
that you referred to?
Dr Cooper:
Certainly. I think the point we're trying to make is that
teaching and research go together, and that is the dissemination
of knowledge and also its advancement. In that way an institution
contributes to society in some larger sense as well as to the
students specifically. What we are aware of-and I guess quite
frankly we're thinking a little bit of the University of Phoenix
as an example-is that when you use only part-time instructors and
when they have no research mandate, then you are in some
minimalist way disseminating knowledge but you're not advancing
it. Traditionally, a university has always disseminated and
advanced knowledge. Those two go together. I guess we're trying
to stress that they go together for a reason, in that if you want
to maintain quality and excellence over time, then it would be
important to keep those functions together.
The Chair:
Thank you very much for bringing your perspective to the hearings
here today. We appreciate your taking the time to come before
us.
ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS AND
TECHNOLOGY OF ONTARIO
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from the association of colleges of
Ontario. Good afternoon. Welcome to the committee.
Ms Susan
Bloomfield: Should I come around and shake hands? You
probably need to stand up.
The Chair:
Actually, we're a little concerned because there will be a vote
so we're trying to get the last two presentations in under the
wire. The rules of the House demand that the committee rise when
there's a vote, so we don't want to shortchange anyone's
presentation.
Ms
Bloomfield: Thank you for having us. I am very, very
pleased to be here today. We're going to be brief because you've
had so much information, I am sure, showered upon you. My name is
Susan Bloomfield. I am chair of ACAATO, the Association of
Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology of Ontario. On my left is
Dr Howard Rundle with Fanshawe, who is speaking to you
afterwards, and Joan Homer, our executive director.
A little background for
you: I represent the governors, who are the employers of the
college system in Ontario. I have been involved in the college
system for six years as a governor at Cambrian College in
Sudbury. I was chair of their governance for two and a half years
and then was elected last February by 25 board chairs and 25
presidents to the position that I hold for two years as a
volunteer in the system.
We represent 200
communities in the province of Ontario that have community
college education available to them. I know you have the
background material so I won't spend any more time on that. I
would like to let you know, though, that over one million
graduates have come out of the community college system. They
have proven themselves to be a real economic and social benefit
to the people of Ontario. We are really grateful that there are
so many community college supporters here who are actively
working in and with the college system. We thank you for
that.
We are so supportive of
this bill. We have been really enthusiastically working and
lobbying for it since 1996, and I can tell you that the employers
in the 200 communities are so thrilled, because they have been
asking for more credentialing for the students for some time now.
We need to make them internationally competent and marketable. We
know that in the United States, in Alberta and in Europe, this is
a recognized addition for young, middle-aged and older people's
education. We need this credential to be internationally
marketable, and we are so excited that it's coming now and will
be available to the students of Ontario in the very near
future.
This is not going to
interfere, I don't believe, in any way with our diploma program
or with the baccalaureate degree from universities. I think it
really fits a need in our economic society right now, in our
knowledge economy, and it will be of huge benefit to a very large
number of students because most students now are lifelong
learners. There's just
no way around it. This really facilitates the marketability of
young people in our province.
You're going to be hearing
from 10 different college presidents, so I will not spend any
time talking about what they're going to talk about. I don't want
to steal any of Howard's thunder. I just know that this is such
an important time for all the people in Ontario to make this huge
leap after 30 years of a successful process. But we need the
change and it's timely, considering how well we're doing in our
economic growth in the province.
We would ask for just some
minor changes in terms of wording and recommendations to make it
readable. I was talking to a student this afternoon and I said,
"Well, what do you think about this bill?" She said, "We're
thrilled, we're thrilled, we're thrilled." I think that just
about sums it up. The more readable it is to the people who are
using it, the easier it will be for everyone. That would be our
only caution. Other than that, I would like to open it up to any
questions you have of us at this point in time.
The Chair:
Thank you very much. If you like, we could ask Dr Rundle if he
wanted to make his comments, add his time to yours right now.
Dr Howard
Rundle: Sure. I'd be glad to do that.
The Chair:
Then we can have questions after that. OK?
Ms
Bloomfield: Great.
FANSHAWE COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND
TECHNOLOGY
Dr Rundle:
My name is Howard Rundle. I'm from Fanshawe College in London,
Ontario.
I'm only speaking to the
matter of applied degrees contained in this bill and I'm only
going to make, and my paper makes, only one simple point,
although I do support all of the comments made by my colleagues
from Conestoga and Seneca that you've heard this afternoon. But
the paper tries to give you something, a contribution I believe
Fanshawe College has made to this issue, and that is the fact
that it has been an issue that we have been studying for over 10
years.
I come with the perspective
of the person who was first introduced to this whole topic of
applied degrees as vice-president, academic, of Fanshawe, a
position I held for eight years prior to becoming president five
years ago. I have lived through the last 13 years seeing this
emerge as a major issue, so much so that our board of governors
undertook a major study of it about a year and a half ago. I
outline that in the paper.
1730
What we really observed was
that for a growing number of students-and it is only a minority
of college students-Ontario is in fact importing post-secondary
education for its citizens, because our graduates are able to
obtain much more credit by going out of province or indeed out of
country to complete degrees, if they need to do that, and a
growing number do need to do that. They are paying considerably
extra money to do that. They are doing something that could be
done in province. We would not need to be importing education
from other countries. That's basically what's happening now.
Our board studied the
system in British Columbia and Alberta and after a year's work
came to the conclusion that the introduction of an applied degree
having the full status of a baccalaureate degree but being
essentially different in that it would continue to be applied and
not hugely theoretical, although there's always a component of
theoretical work that goes with it, was what was really needed in
Ontario. If we do this, we are going to save, as a colleague has
mentioned, not only the taxpayer money, but where students do go
on and articulate at universities inside Ontario, taking at least
a year longer than they do at universities outside Ontario, it is
at much greater cost to themselves. So it would seem to be a
win-win situation all around, both for the taxpayer and for the
student.
I simply wanted to
demonstrate that our college has been studying this issue for
over 10 years. It's not a flash in the pan. It has not been
diminishing; it has been growing. A move like this has been
needed for some time and we applaud it significantly. That's all
I have to say. I'll try and answer questions.
The Chair:
Thank you. In the rotation, the next round of questioning is
going to start with the government members. We have enough time
to go around.
Mrs Julia Munro
(York North): Thank you very much, both of you-I know
you were wearing two hats there-for presenting your views here
today.
Many of us recognize how
important it is to move forward with this piece of legislation. I
wonder, though, if you'd care to comment, given the fact that you
talked about how you have talked to alumni and that you have
looked at this issue for some time, and could give us a sense of
where you see new areas opening up, because I'm sure that you
have given it some thought. We've heard presenters today talk
about the way in which employers in their communities require
degrees, but I'm just wondering if you've given some thought to
new vistas that this piece of legislation would open up for
either you individually or collectively as an institution.
Dr Rundle:
I know at our institution our first thought is not going to be
new vistas, if by that you mean whole new programming areas that
we're not in. There's a pent-up need right now, particularly in
the health field. Fanshawe provides a very broad spectrum of
health paraprofessional training-respiratory therapists,
radiography-and those students are now saying, "Now that nurses
are going to have to have degrees, we're the only ones working in
hospitals who don't. So we want it and insist on it." Indeed it's
occurring out west.
In advanced technology
programming, Ontario is one of the only jurisdictions that has
three-year applied programs in colleges. Most other provinces and
countries are limited to two years. So we have some very advanced
programming already. There's such a pent-up demand right now at
our institution that it will be to deal with those first before
we start zooming off and looking into other fields or other
areas.
Ms Bloomfield: I think you'll
find it's region-specific to a certain extent as well. Sudbury
will be looking, because of the mining industry and the forestry,
at an applied degree in technology as their first and foremost
priority, along with nursing. But depending on the community that
is being served by the college, they will tell us very clearly
what they want. They are very excited. The mood in the province
in these 200 communities is just, "Let's get going." So we would
really encourage-if we could get the immediate appointment of the
quality assessment board and get the students going as of this
coming September, it would be a huge benefit.
Mr Garfield Dunlop
(Simcoe North): You mentioned that you talked to some of
the students and they were very optimistic about this. What are
you hearing around the province from students?
Ms
Bloomfield: Tremendous support overall.
A community college
encompasses a lot of different things. You can take ballroom
dancing, motorcycle repair, advanced programs in accounting that
you can transfer on to university. It covers so many areas. This
is one area that allows students to be lifelong learners, to just
keep growing and adding to their credentials, to maintain
internationally. I think that's what we're really seeing, that
colleges in Ontario now have to compete internationally and
provide that for their students. This is one of the things that
they want, that they know they need and that they're ready for.
We have to keep that here because colleges do a lot of things for
a lot of people, from upgrading to get into the process to this
next step. So we can't forget: they are multifaceted
opportunities.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: I have one question for the government
and one question for Dr Rundle. There's a lot of optimism and
excitement about this, and we share the opinion of the value of
this part of the bill. But I understand there will only be one
applied degree per year per institution granted. What exactly is
the formula? Maybe Ms Molinari could answer that.
Ms
Molinari: Eight projects per year for three years would
be approved.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: So eight different projects every
year?
Ms
Molinari: Yes, eight projects every year, for three
years.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: Then my question for Dr Rundle: you have
limited, as is appropriate, your comments to community colleges,
that part of the bill, and you said that when this bill is
passed, Ontario will be able to provide some of the education
that we are now importing. The other part of the bill speaks very
specifically to importing education, such as the Phoenix. I know
you're the president of a college, not a university, but what is
your opinion on that?
Dr Rundle:
Because of that, of your last comment, we're really neutral with
regard to private universities. We don't believe it will impact
colleges in any significant way, so we really don't have a
position on that.
Mr Levac:
Do I have time, Mr Chair?
The Chair:
For a quick question.
Mr Levac:
I had asked earlier on about trying to get to education
beforehand with the skills development. I asked a question
earlier about programs that are necessary to have a built-in bias
that seems to be in our communities about skills development and
skills for trades. Do you believe that the government should be
sponsoring and supporting programs that try to educate parents
and the students before they become college students about the
value of the skills and the trade development, for example? I'll
give a kick to my own community: the Brant Skills Development
Group forms partnerships with all stakeholders, including
students and parents, with regard to trying to educate them in
the value of skills development.
Dr Rundle:
That is just absolutely true. Probably the most influential time
is when the child is in elementary school, actually. They come to
secondary school already with the notion, "If I'm
better-than-average intelligence, I'm going to university," and
sometimes into careers that are low-paying, over-supplied and do
not appreciate what skills trades opportunities there are in our
society today. It's really quite sad when there's going to be
such a huge demand. So whatever can be done-and it looks like we
have to reach parents predominantly, parents of children aged
five through the teenage years.
Ms
Bloomfield: If I could add to that too, I'd like to say
that with this new applied degree coming out, what we provide for
students is a seamless, over-time education. There isn't going to
be us and them, the bright and the not-so-bright. There is
absolutely no need any more for those kinds of expectations: if
you're this bright, you go to university; if you're this bright,
you do that. Colleges provide an ongoing educational opportunity
for anybody who wants to work hard and do it. I think that is a
new philosophy. You know, 30 years ago we had this streamlining.
We don't need that any more. I don't see, in five or six years,
the kinds of bias that has existed in the past: college material,
university material. That will go. But we still need tool and die
makers.
Ms
Churley: It's just interesting to follow up on streaming
in high schools. Do you think this would actually make an impact
on how that's now done?
Ms
Bloomfield: I don't see the pressure on the children
that is imposed upon them now. If they know, "I don't know what I
want to do but I know I have the opportunity to keep learning,"
and there isn't that bias, then they-I don't know if any of you
have children. I have four children and my youngest is 19. The
pressure he felt last November to pick a university or pick a
college or pick a program was awful. It was pitiful to watch what
they have to go through, because the expectation they have now
is, "I must succeed." I want them to think, "I want to enjoy
learning, I want to keep on learning all my life, I want to get
validation from that," and I think if we institute this program,
it allows colleges to provide a seamless ongoing education and if
they want to go on to university and master's degrees and
doctorates they will not be intimidated by the process any
more.
Ms Churley: Thank you for that.
I wanted to follow up on the question asked previously to the
parliamentary assistant, just your views on that. I understand
that there's a three-year pilot project and there are up to eight
new applied degrees programs which will be approved each year. Do
you and others have input on which pilot programs are being
decided, how they are being decided and that sort of thing? For
instance, do all of the colleges have input on how the decisions
are going to be made?
Ms
Bloomfield: Certainly. The board of governors in each
college is the employer. They take a look at it. They have
subcommittees that have educational committees and finance
committees. So each college in each region will determine what
they're going to apply for of those eight opportunities and
sequentially how many each year. So it will be regional specific,
based on their needs with their communities.
Ms
Churley: What I am getting at, I guess-it's the
three-year pilot project and "up to eight"-is how decisions are
going to be ultimately made. Perhaps the government can answer
this better, what those "up to eight" will be and which colleges.
Are they applying for different programs? Who makes the decision,
may I ask?
Ms
Molinari: I can respond to that. Yes, the applications
will be submitted and the quality assessment board will be the
governing board that will make the decision on those that follow
the criteria that the board is to follow with the approval. The
board will be able to access the expert panels for various
decisions that need to be made because the quality assessment
board will be the body that will decide, but they will get advice
from a number of expert panels to make the decision on which will
come forward. The colleges certainly will have a large role to
play in the co-operation of that and knowing what criteria is
going to be looked at, so they will be a partner in that
decision.
The Chair:
Mrs Munro, you were motioning that I had perhaps cut you off when
I went to Mr Dunlop.
Mrs Munro:
I just wanted to add a comment that's related to an issue raised
a moment ago in terms of making sure that students are aware of
the options. I just wanted to clarify that from grade 7 on,
students are making individual education plans and this is the
whole idea that you're addressing: the importance of being sure
that our young people are making those decisions. At least in
this program, it does allow that kind of opportunity to begin
that early.
The Chair:
If I could just add as well that you note in your presentation
that there are some other wording changes you would like to see
made. I could suggest that we have another week for you to offer
any specific suggestions in that regard. If you care to send them
to the clerk, we will make sure that they are distributed to all
the committee members.
Thank you very much for
taking the time to come before us to make your presentations.
With that, the committee
stands adjourned until 3:30 on Wednesday afternoon.
