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
Humber
College
Dr Robert Gordon
Ontario Secondary
School Teachers' Federation
Ms Sherry Rosner
Michener Institute for
Applied Health Sciences
Ms Renate Krakauer
Council of Ontario
Universities
Dr Ian Clark
DeVry Institue of
Technology
Mr Peter Brown
Ontario Association of
Certified Engineering Technicians and
Technologists
Ms Angela Shama
Mr Trevor Onken
Ontario Undergraduate
Student Alliance
Mr Mark Schaan
Ontario Public
Service Employees Union
Ms Leah Casselman
Mr Jordan Berger
Glenn Gould
Professional School
Dr Jack Behrens
Mr Rennie Regehr
Ms Shannon Paterson
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
Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill PC)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Anne Stokes
Staff /Personnel
Mr Larry Johnston, research officer, Research and Information
Services
The committee met at 1531 in committee room
1.
MINISTRY OF TRAINING, COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT DES LOIS
EN CE QUI A TRAIT AU MINISTÈRE DE LA FORMATION ET DES
COLLÈGES ET UNIVERSITÉS
Consideration of Bill 132, An
Act to enact the Post-secondary Education Choice and Excellence
Act, 2000, repeal the Degree Granting Act and change the title of
and make amendments to the Ministry of Colleges and Universities
Act / Projet de loi 132, Loi édictant la Loi de 2000
favorisant le choix et l'excellence au niveau 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.
HUMBER COLLEGE
The Chair (Mr Steve
Gilchrist): Good afternoon. I call the committee to
order for our second 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.
Our first presentation this
afternoon will be from Humber College. I invite their
representative to come forward to the witness table, please. Good
afternoon and welcome to the committee.
Dr Robert
Gordon: My name is Robert Gordon. I thank you for this
opportunity. I certainly will try to make it brief because I
realize you have a very short timeline.
First, I'd just like to offer
my congratulations to the government and, in particular, our
minister Dianne Cunningham for shepherding this through. In my
opinion-and I've been at Humber for 19 years as president-this is
a remarkably visionary bill, long overdue. It will not be
greeted, as you have probably already discovered, with enthusiasm
in some quarters, but I think you have done the right thing in
focusing on what's beneficial to the province in the long term,
both for the students and taxpayers, but also for our ability to
relate internationally.
I would like to make two
major points, and maybe a couple of minor ones in closing. The
first is that there is a major issue-and others may have
mentioned this-relating to the inclusion in paragraph 2 of
section 2, and it's mentioned throughout, of "or part of a
program." I don't think it was meant the way it could be
translated in years to come. We assume it's not intended to
undermine existing relationships that have been developed, by the
colleges in particular, with institutions within Ontario and
certainly without, to facilitate student learning and access in
an ongoing, seamless, lifelong educational perspective.
This could be a disaster if
it is applied as it is specifically stated. Presumably it means
every time you try to do some of these things, you require
ministerial consent. That would be a bureaucratic tangle that I
think would serve very little effective use of anyone's time.
More importantly, the colleges have hundreds of relationships
already in place, which in theory, as there's a grandfathering
clause, would be jeopardized by this. For example, at Humber
alone we have a book that's about half an inch thick which lists
our relationships with universities all over the world, for which
of course we have no ministerial consent because we haven't
needed it. In any case, I think I make my point.
Attracting foreign students
is a very important part of our business now. They want to know
that they can take a diploma at a college in Ontario and then
proceed to a degree. We live in the credential world, and the
baccalaureate is understood around the world, whereas the diploma
offered by the Ontario colleges, while it may be a very good
education, is actually not that well understood because it is not
in sync with the associate degree in the United States and
western Canada, which is essentially two years, followed by two
years to get a bacca-laureate. We, as you know, have three years
and two years. We need to have that marketing potential so that
we don't disadvantage ourselves in that competition.
Anyway, there's more to be
said on that point, but if you review your own document, you'll
see that it's mentioned so many times that it's going to be very
hard to ignore it. I don't think we need, with all respect, some
bureaucratic enthusiast who starts applying the letter of the
law.
The second point is a little
more controversial, possibly. In section 4 you talk about an
"applied area of study," or
"applied degrees," as they have been picked up by the media, for
the colleges. I am very concerned that the universities are not
enthusiastic about the colleges getting into this field, that is,
the baccalaureate level, and they will not be helpful in terms of
allowing students flexibility. Obviously, the primary focus of
these degrees would be to go into the workforce, because why
would we do them? The applied degrees will essentially be in this
Education Quality Assessment Board, which has yet to be
established. We'll be looking at proposals which are not offered
at the universities for which there's a tremendous socio-economic
need and also a demand by students.
Having said that, one of the
big problems of the CAAT system for 35 years has been the fact
that, as we now integrate so many things, the CAAT students, of
which I would suggest there are probably about a million Ontario
graduates at this point and growing every year, are essentially
blocked from age 21 or whatever year they graduate-obviously some
are older-from returning to any institutional credential which
would allow them to keep their lives moving at the pace they
require to upgrade. In other words, they're eligible to return to
colleges, but most of them probably want to upgrade their college
credential into a university one, and they find tremendous
blockages.
Similarly, if you have
applied degrees which will be translated by some as second-class
degrees, not real university degrees, de facto, if the
universities are not excited about this prospect to start with,
they can easily block the colleges from further aggrandizement of
their scope by saying, "Well, these degrees are not eligible for
entry to graduate school." I think that's a great shame. Degrees
should be offered on their merits just as every university in
Ontario is not the same and, therefore, their degrees are not
worth the same, at least in the marketplace and in the
reputational place, if you read Maclean's magazine last week. I
think it's only fair that the colleges and their graduates, if
they're offering degrees, should be offering degrees and then
judge them on the basis of the quality of their production and
how their graduates do in years to come.
In other words, my point
would be to not repeat the mistakes of the past, which is
essentially having a two-tier system which never speaks and which
has disenfranchised and made, I believe, Ontario weaker. If you
remember, the colleges were established 35 years ago to fill a
gap between high school graduates and the few university
graduates to provide a middle level infrastructure for the
economy, but the economy has changed and now we're looking at
lifelong education where people need to have the opportunity to
upgrade. You simply have to see the number of MBA programs that
are offered in a flexible manner to understand that point. It is
quite clear that more education will bring a better chance for
Ontario to compete internationally, which is where we are
today.
I would ask you consider
stressing that where the colleges are getting in a nominal way
into degrees, not applied, and eliminate the terms which talk
about "applied," so that the universities-they may not like this,
but I've been around a long time-will not be able to christen
them as second class and not really degrees.
Nursing, by the way, is
another example of this, where the nursing people very definitely
want degrees. They've got this through the Ministry of Health.
We're now in a very great problem of trying to make sure the
curricula are integrated. It's not easy because the universities
don't accept the colleges by and large, and yet 70% to 75% of the
nursing students in this province go to the colleges. I think
this is a very good example of where the nurses are saying, "We
fought all these years for degree status, so we don't want
second-class degrees," and the universities say, "Right. We agree
with you 100%," not looking at the needs of society at large. I
think there needs to be some more flexibility which says that
these are real degrees.
I have a couple of other
points that are very nominal. In section 8, the sentence "The
giving of a consent does not entitle the person ... to any
funding...." I would put in words like "does not automatically
entitle the person to any funding."
I'm a little concerned about
the use of the word "inspector," which I think you stole from
England, where they do have inspectors. I went there for six
months and I know all about it. They descend on the colleges and
universities to inspect their activities. This is a little
pejorative. I think you may want to consider another form of the
word "inspection." "Evaluation," "learning assurance"-there are
other ways of doing it. I come from Quebec also, I might add,
where the language police have developed quite a reputation for
descending on recalcitrant stores who happen to have a sign
that's one inch bigger in English than in French.
Finally, I'm a little
concerned about the freedom of information and the rights of
individuals where it is not clear what powers the inspectors have
when it gets to things like reviewing student transcripts, which
is actually private information, confidential to the student and
the institution. I think that needs to be clarified.
Finally, in section 11, the
whole question of OSAP and throwing people in jail: it is an
interesting concept and may be fair from the point of view that
there are those who have been ripping off the system, but I think
it needs to be softened to read something like, "those who
deliberately wish to mislead," as opposed to everyone's a crook
until you can prove you're not by paying it back.
Anyway, there are some
observations there. I hope I've said something that other
presenters have not said, because I appreciate that many of my
colleagues have already been here.
1540
The Chair:
Thank you. If you wish, we have about three minutes for
questioning. The rotation this time will start with the
Liberals.
Mrs Marie
Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): I'm a little confused
about your comments about universities not being sympathetic
toward the degree-granting status of colleges, because, coming
from Hamilton, McMaster
and Mohawk have worked very well together and have in fact
applied to do a joint nursing degree and have received approval
in principle by both the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of
Training, Colleges and Universities. Unfortunately, approval is
all they've received; they haven't received anything else and
they cannot offer the program in September 2001. But they were
ready to go. They've got the curriculum and everything. My
experience has been there's a great deal of respect between those
two institutions and a few others I have visited over the last
year. I guess I'd like to know what hard evidence you have for
making that comment, because I don't see that problem.
Dr Gordon:
The hard evidence is 35 years working in public education. With
all respect, the Mohawk-McMaster deal just fell apart last
week.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: I know that. But why did it fall
apart?
Dr Gordon:
Because McMaster insisted on getting millions of dollars for a
new building, which is-
Mrs
Bountrogianni: That's not why it fell apart.
Dr Gordon:
I'm making a simple point about applied degrees, I'm not-
Mrs
Bountrogianni: Actually, sir, it didn't fall apart. It's
on hold.
Dr Gordon:
I'm not here to argue with you. You can believe what you want,
but the truth of the matter is that there has been very little
co-operation and transfer between colleges and universities for
the 35 years of the existence of colleges. If you wish to
believe-
Mrs
Bountrogianni: All right. If that's your evidence, thank
you. That's all.
The Chair:
Mr Levac, do you have anything? You have about one minute.
Mr Dave Levac
(Brant): Just a short one. Thanks, Mr Chairman. I
appreciate it.
Doctor, you made some
observations about two or three concerns you expressed about the
legislation presently. Could you give us a recommendation beyond
just saying you have concerns about it? What would you do to
rectify some of those things? Would you take them out?
Dr Gordon: I
would take out the clause. The fundamental clause is the one
about "or a part of." I don't have and certainly my colleagues
don't have problems with-we think the legislation is wonderful,
but it's not only confusing, I think it's going to be very
problematic. It could destroy a lot of relationships that have
already been established if one has to follow the letter of that
clause. In addition, it will certainly be problematic for the
future, because the way you read it is that you can't establish a
relationship with the University of British Columbia without
getting-and that's just a transfer. This is not about who's
offering the degree in Ontario, which is another issue entirely.
It simply means that you'd have to get ministerial consent.
They'll have to establish a full-time bureaucracy to vet the
hundreds and thousands of relationships that have been developed
in the last 10 to 15 years.
Mr Levac:
You're also talking about the entire relationship of the college
portion of the bill that's speaking directly to granting of
degrees.
Dr Gordon:
Yes.
Mr Levac: Is
it fair to distinguish between the two? So your support of the
bill is mainly because of the degree-granting possibilities for
colleges, or the privatization or-
Dr Gordon:
Both. I'll take my chances. The colleges have always had
competition from many private colleges, so this issue is
fundamentally for the universities and they're going to have to
speak to it. From a personal and professional educator's point of
view, I think it's marvellous. To me, more education,
particularly for people who are willing to pay for it themselves,
because I assume that private universities will have to charge
fees and there's no public money involved-how can that be a
problem, except for those who want to protect a monopoly?
The Chair:
Thank you, Dr Gordon. I appreciate your coming and making your
presentation here today.
ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from the Ontario Secondary School
Teachers' Federation: Ms Sherry Rosner and Mr Mark Ciavaglia.
Good afternoon and welcome to the committee.
Ms Sherry
Rosner: Thank you. We have provided copies of our
presentation to you. I'll just read through it, and if there is
ample time at the end we will take questions.
The long title of the bill,
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, betrays the true nature of the legislation. The
act should be called "An Act to allow persons friendly to the
Tory government an opportunity to make large profits by providing
a minimum education at blockbuster prices or degrees for those
able to pay."
As in the public elementary
and secondary panels, most post-secondary education has faced the
same kinds of fiscal pressures on education in Ontario. John
Snobelen outlined the reasons for creating the crisis in his
now-famous "create a crisis" speech caught on camera in 1995.
Since then we have witnessed an erosion of funding that has
produced a 30% increase in the ratio between full-time faculty
and students at Ontario public universities. The new ratio
exceeds the average ratio of nine other provinces. The reason for
this increase lies in the cuts to operating grants to
universities. In 1996-97, the government cut $280 million to
universities, which since 1995 amounts to a cumulative cut of
$1.4 billion. Just as has been experienced in public elementary
and secondary education, the per-student amount committed to
post-secondary education has declined since 1995 by 17%. At the
same time, to compensate for declining investment in
post-secondary education, tuition fees increased. Tuition now counts for over 40% of
operating costs. Tuition fees are $1,395 higher than in 1995-96,
when this government came to power.
In terms of capital
expenditures, government commitments to funding new buildings and
deferred maintenance are outstripped by need. New infrastructure
money allocated in the SuperBuild fund will be directed to
projects largely in the applied areas of technology, health
sciences and general sciences. At the same time, applications
from students are at the 40% level for programs in the arts.
Maintenance costs are projected to rise to $1.3 billion by 2010.
This government has not addressed enrolment growth and crumbling
infrastructure, other than by divestment.
In 1999,
PricewaterhouseCoopers found that a summary analysis of the
financial position of the Ontario university sector indicates
that universities do not possess the necessary financial
resources to fund their own growth, to take advantage of
opportunities or to meet the record level of student demand they
will be facing over the next decade.
Underfunding has served to
drive tuition up as part of a broader strategy to make private,
unregulated tuition fees palatable. By underfunding universities,
the government has paved the way for business to assume what is a
necessary government function. Driving up student debt reduces
access for those least able to afford post-secondary education.
In conclusion, the government has deliberately set the groundwork
in place to absolve themselves of the responsibility to provide
comprehensive education for all citizens in Ontario.
Opening the doors for private
universities has made profit the bottom line-not excellence.
Market forces work to increase profits and, to do so, modify
service. Currently, Ontario has a system that works toward
excellence in academic legitimacy and in the interests of
students. Efficiencies delivered by for-profit institutions will
speak to the qualification rather than the qualifiers or
requirement to attain the degree or diploma. Private institutions
allowed to grant degrees or diplomas will deliver the paper but
not the rigour. Any implementation of academic rigour will cut
into profits and market appeal. As Henry Jacek, President of
OCUFA, said, "If it's a profit-making corporation, you're under a
lot of pressure to make it easy for people to enrol, to pay money
and to get a piece of paper saying they have a degree."
Private for-profit
post-secondary institutions will create institutions of higher
learning dedicated to play on the anxieties of job-hungry
potential graduates and not on the betterment of society. They
will cater to the interests of companies, not citizens, and
narrow the focus of education to training alone. They will view
students as products and evaluation as quality control. If
tuition rates are competitive, then only service can be adjusted
to produce profit. The quality assessment board for private
universities proposed by the Ontario government is only an
advisory body. The government does not have to follow the board's
advice. In Ontario, we will have the same as the United States,
where an accredited private university does not mean that it is
necessarily of high quality.
1550
A recent example of this is
noted in an October news item on CKNW radio in British Columbia,
which read as follows:
"Degrees for sale
on-line.
"The regulatory body for
private post-secondary institutions in BC is taking court action
against Vancouver University, because it sells degrees on the
Internet. In a writ filed in BC Supreme Court, the Private
Post-Secondary Education Commission says the university, also
known as the BC Montessori Teachers College, charges US$500 for a
certificate, and US$4,000 for a PhD. It says the degrees are
awarded following a review of an individual's prior studies, and
professional or other experiences. However, the commission claims
the BC institution has no lawful degree-granting authority."
The Chronicle of Higher
Education reports in its October issue that the University of
Phoenix in the US, with more than 75,000 students, is now the
largest private university in the United States. About 14,000
students take its courses on-line. The Harris government has said
this type of service is what makes private, for-profit
post-secondary education attractive, especially for working
people.
A report entitled What's the
Difference? April 99, A Review of Contemporary Research on the
Effectiveness of Distance Learning in Higher Education, prepared
for the American Federation of Teachers and the National
Education Association in the US, pointed out that a higher
percentage of students participating in distance education tended
to drop out before the course was completed. Only 40% of the
students who started on-line courses completed the courses,
compared to 95% of resident students who completed their courses.
The report refers to the learning styles of individuals who took
on-line education, to whom it is supposed to appeal. The report
suggests that researchers look at the factors that reduce
participation rates among those who take on-line courses. With
the high dropout rate, the company is left with the profits and
the students are left out-of-pocket.
If the Ontario government's
recent university quality performance funding announcement, based
on graduation and employment rates of university graduates, is an
indication of what the government sees as quality in university
programs, then there is no assurance that students at these
private universities will be guaranteed a quality education.
Quality relates to the whole range of resources and experiences a
university brings to its students, including ongoing
student-teacher interaction and library and research facilities.
Private, for-profit universities such as the University of
Phoenix have been found wanting in each of these areas in a
number of US states.
In terms of research, we only
have to look at the experience of Naney Olivieri and her research
arrangement with Apotex. Bill Graham, president of the University
of Toronto faculty association, summed it up best at a conference on creeping private
sector control of education last November: "Government and
business want us all to be entrepreneurs." He went on to say "the
job of an entrepreneur is to develop and sell a product, not to
pursue the truth."
Private universities will do
nothing to address the disturbing trend of declining access to
higher education for students from lower-income families caused
by high tuition fees and other education-related costs. For
example, a recent University of Guelph study found that students
from lower socio-economic groups were not attending the
university in the same numbers in the late 1990s as in the late
1980s. The study found that in 1987, 40% of the students came
from families making less than $40,000, while 33% of families in
Ontario reported making less than $40,000 that year. Almost 10
years later, in 1996, 16% of Guelph students came from families
earning less than $40,000, while 23% of Ontario families reported
earning that same amount.
In 1998, the University of
Western Ontario raised tuition fees for incoming medical students
from $3,500 to $10,000. Among those in the 1998 first-year
medical program who paid $10,000, only 7.7% reported their family
income at less than $40,000. However, more than 17% of
fourth-year medical students who were not affected by the large
tuition increase came from low-income backgrounds. Another recent
study at the University of Waterloo found a similar trend. The
government needs to address these trends through appropriate
funding and student assistance policies, not by introducing
private universities which only accentuate problems of
accessibility to higher education.
The OSSTF is opposed to the
high-tuition programs offered by public universities, which
essentially represent the creeping privatization of public
universities. The OSSTF believes government policy should be
directed to meeting student demand through an affordable,
high-quality public university system which is much more
accountable to the taxpayer than a system of privately owned
institutions which charge exorbitant fees and offer programs of
questionable quality. We also question why the government is
devoting so much time and resources to setting up an essentially
means-test private university system when our excellent public
university system could accommodate student demand, if given the
appropriate resources.
In a January 2000 Canadian
Press story about Canada's first Internet-based degree-granting
university, Michael Gaffney, president of Learnsoft Corp, the
Ottawa-based company that owns and administers Unexus, said it's
a bargain for students. Tuition for the inaugural program, an
executive Master of Business Administration degree, is $25,000.
The program takes two and a half years to complete. Such a
program at most Ontario universities would cost anywhere from
$55,000 to $85,000.
For students who can least
afford a post-secondary education, there will be no choice. When
the government of Ontario claims that introducing private
universities will offer a greater scope of choice, one has to
wonder about whom they are talking. In some cases, as we see in
the Chronicle of Higher Education, for-profit institutions such
as the University of Phoenix can afford to pay fines as the price
of doing business and leave students who cannot afford higher
education to learn the bitter lesson that you get what you pay
for.
As reported in the Chronicle
of Higher Education in April 2000, the University of Phoenix
agreed to pay $6 million to the US federal government and to
lenders to resolve education department charges that the
institution gave federal financial aid to students who were
ineligible for the funds. The department's inspector general had
sought more than $55 million in fines against the for-profit
university.
In an audit report released
late last month, the inspector general, Lorraine Lewis, said the
University of Phoenix students did not spend enough hours in
class to qualify for the aid they received. As a result, she
recommended that the department require the university to repay
lenders $50.6 million in federal loans which she said its
students had received improperly. She also recommended that the
university be required to reimburse the government for the
interest and the federal subsidies the department had to pay to
lenders for those loans. This was the second time in the past few
months that the education department has penalized the university
for mishandling federal aid funds.
Who is ultimately left
holding the bag? It's the students. And it's the students who can
least afford it. We only have to look at the King's Medical
Centre fiasco to see what happens when private enterprise is
allowed in a picture motivated by concerns for profit.
In the Globe and Mail on
April 28, 2000, Premier Harris noted, "There are a considerable
number of Ontario students who are now going to the United States
who are prepared to pay $40,000, $50,000, $60,000 a year in
tuition." He said it is only common sense to provide institutions
in Canada that would accommodate such students.
From the Premier's comments
it is apparent who would attend these private institutions. He
obviously did not mean poorer students. Students at the new
private institutions will be eligible for money from the Ontario
student assistance program. But the maximum tuition fee that will
be accepted for OSAP aid will be $4,500, as is the case for the
existing institutions. So to whom will private, for-profit
post-secondary institutions answer?
On Friday, September 29, the
Chronicle of Higher Education, in an article entitled "U. of
Phoenix Sells $70-Million Worth of Stock in its
Distance-Education Efforts," stated that the parent company of
the University of Phoenix raised $70 million from Wall Street
investors on the previous Thursday in a stock offering tied
directly to the company's distance education operation. The deal
was being widely watched in education and finance circles,
because it was the first market test of a public offering of
stock in a distance education institution.
The parent company, the Apollo Group, raised the
money by issuing stock tied directly to the performance of the
company's University of Phoenix on-line division. The five
million shares of this so-called tracking stock were sold at $14
per share, the low end of the $14 to $16 range the company had
previously discussed in public filings. The stock closed at
$17.81 on the first day of trading, having reached as high as $21
per share during the course of the day. Although these first few
shares were not voting shares, the next issues may well be, and
the Apollo Group will act in the interests of their shareholders
to deliver profit, not in the interest of citizens to deliver
excellent education.
The same Michael Gaffney,
president of Learnsoft Corp, the Ottawa-based company which owns
and administers Unexus, said in the Globe and Mail, "We're not
here for charity or for the public good."
Again in the Chronicle of
Higher Education issue dated September 22, Ane V. Wellman said,
"American higher education is undergoing a period of enormous
experimentation, which holds great promise for positive change.
But the potential for inferior educational offerings is also
ripe, from sham operators who offer `college courses' over the
Internet to established institutions that have allowed quality to
erode in the scramble to do more with less. In such an
environment, the role of accreditation in ensuring that higher
education institutions are accountable to the public is more
important than ever."
1600
The Chair:
Excuse me, Ms Rosner. I've already indulged you with three
minutes over your time. Perhaps you could move to your
conclusion.
Ms Rosner:
Sure. Sorry about that.
The Chair:
That's OK.
Ms Rosner:
In conclusion, the introduction of Bill 132 raises more questions
than it answers. There is no doubt that privatization of
post-secondary education is the first step down the line. We can
expect, and indeed we are hearing of, overtures made to this
government to put public money into private education at the
elementary and high school levels. This is the government that
claims it is here to fix government. In fact, this group of
Tories sees no role for government at all. Bills such as Bill 132
have become indicative of the theme "business good, government
bad."
This bill is foolhardy. It is
equivalent to inviting in off-shore registered education
providers. The role of government in all of this will be to clean
up the mess, à la Exxon Valdez. There is a role of
government to protect the public interest. It is not in the
public interest to develop a multi-tiered education system.
People in Ontario want government to provide public health care
and public education. Do not leave the people of Ontario on the
hook for the inevitable cleanup after free enterprise has
delivered the educational disaster.
We encourage you to withdraw
the bill.
The Chair:
Thank you very much for your comments. I appreciate your coming
in today.
MICHENER INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED HEALTH SCIENCES
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from the Michener Institute for
Applied Health Sciences. Welcome to the committee.
Ms Renate
Krakauer: I hope you'll all be able to see the slides.
This is just a summary of the brief that we are handing out to
you, but this will hopefully leave time for questions. So I can
do it quite quickly.
I'd like to thank the
committee for the opportunity to address how Bill 132 will affect
the Michener Institute, which is a unique institution in Ontario,
and how it will benefit our students, our graduates and the
employers who hire our graduates.
We're here particularly to
address the issue of the Bachelor of Applied Health Science,
which we think our students deserve and for whom this bill would
hopefully make it a reality.
The Michener Institute for
Applied Health Sciences has a unique role in Ontario, both in the
health care system and in post-secondary education. It's been
around for 42 years and has developed an excellent reputation. It
is funded by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, so you're
not dealing with a private university. The Michener is the only
institution of its kind in Ontario dedicated to educating
professionals for the health care system.
The Michener Institute
particularly appreciates the government's emphasis on excellence
and choice in Bill 132, because we believe we have demonstrated
excellence. As I hope to point out this afternoon, we've
demonstrated excellence in our programs, in our graduates and in
our faculty.
I'm going to refer
particularly to our three- and four-year diploma programs-we have
seven of those-which are the ones we believe qualify for a
Bachelor of Applied Health Science. Although we also have 12
additional programs in advanced areas and in certificate
programs, these are the ones, as you see on the slide, that are
three- and four-year and require entrance requirements the same
as universities, that is, six OACs.
We have a very rigorous
applicant selection process, which is also equivalent to that of
universities. By the way, in terms of entrance requirements I
failed to mention that not only do they require six OACs, but
some of our programs require two years of university as a
prerequisite. In terms of the selection process, we only accept
those candidates who are the best qualified. It's not an open
process, so we make sure we have a very high quality of
student.
Our curriculum is very
demanding; it has three basic components which we believe is part
of our sure-fire success in finding employment for our students.
There is a theoretical or didactic component; a practical
component in our very well equipped laboratories with
state-of-the-art equipment; and a third component, the applied or
clinical education component in over 80 clinical sites around the
province, where the students actually get hands-on experience in the kind of work they
will be doing when they graduate. These clinical relationships
are with Ontario's hospitals and public and private sector
laboratories.
Five out of our seven
programs are accredited by the Canadian Medical Association
Conjoint Committee on the Accreditation of Educational Programs
and two are in the process of acquiring accreditation through
highly respected professional associations in the United States.
Attesting to the excellence of our programs is the fact that we
already have agreements with a number of excellent Ontario
universities, and those are the University of Toronto, Queen's,
Ryerson and the University of Waterloo.
All of our programs have
mandatory advisory councils which ensure that we have the most
relevant information about the workforce and the skills and
competencies that are required. These councils consist of
physician specialists and technologists, usually senior
technologists in their fields.
Now to address the
excellence of graduates: our graduates receive a high-quality
education and so they graduate with a high level of skills and
knowledge in compliance with national competency profiles
established by their professional associations with the CMA, and
97% of our graduates find employment within the first three
months of graduation, as we have found in our most recent
survey.
Our graduates would qualify
for degrees in other jurisdictions outside of this province. For
example, in Australia, a very similar three-year education earns
students a degree in these disciplines. Many American
jurisdictions also provide degrees, as does Great Britain, and,
in fact in other provinces of this country students who take
similar education get a degree. So our students are currently
disadvantaged by not getting degrees. They are disadvantaged
particularly in the global economy if they want any mobility. In
fact one example of this disadvantage is the withdrawal of mutual
recognition that we have experienced recently with Australia.
Our faculty also can
measure up to the criterion of excellence. They're highly
qualified professionals, combining academic credentials with
advanced certification in their own disciplines. They are leaders
in their disciplines by participating in their professional
associations, regulatory colleges and the Canadian Medical
Association accreditation survey team.
I'd like to address the
issue of choice, and I do believe that an applied degree for the
Michener Institute has a lot to do with choice for students. It
would expand the choice that our students would have in terms of
career path opportunities. Currently it's very difficult for
diploma students, who have put in an awful lot of work and have
achieved a high level of skill and competency, to advance beyond
that level. We believe that with a bachelor of applied health
sciences degree, they would have more access to management jobs,
they would have more access to further education, including
graduate education, and they would be able to pursue research
careers if they wished to do so. They would certainly gain
greater credibility nationally and internationally.
We believe that having a
degree would give them a choice in terms of getting the
appropriate recognition for their knowledge and skills to move
into other professional areas. There would also be an increase in
employer confidence, because a degree does stand for something
intangible in many employers' minds. It represents a combination
of generic skills and high-level technical skills. I think that
employers almost use the degree as a shorthand to represent to
them a certain level of qualification that a diploma doesn't,
even though the content of the education itself would be
identical.
1610
The applied degree would
support the Michener Institute's track record on quality,
reliability and accountability. We don't require additional
funding from government for this initiative.
You may not know, but it
may be of interest to you in relation to the legislation
specifically, that the Michener Institute has the lowest student
loan default rate of any post-secondary educational institution
in Ontario.
A degree would also help us
to attract more students. We are currently going into a period of
very high skills shortage areas where it's difficult to recruit
students. We believe that an applied degree would help us in our
recruitment efforts. It would support our responsiveness. We've
always been responsive to our stakeholders, but it would increase
our responsiveness to the professional associations which are
increasingly requiring degrees for entry to practise. The nursing
profession is not the only one that has established that. Other
health professions are now requiring the same. And I believe we
would be responsive to our employers, especially in the private
sector where we are now trying to help our students find
employment in the pharmaceutical and biotech areas. They use the
degree as a screening tool, and quite often, even though our
graduates have the required skills and competencies to work in
the private sector, if they don't have a degree they don't even
look at them.
Given the right to grant an
applied degree, the Michener Institute will ensure that it will
do so within the academically and fiscally sound framework
expected in this province and it will do so in the best interests
of the citizens of the province. I'd be pleased to answer any
questions, as will my colleague.
The Chair:
Thank you very much. That does give us about three minutes for
questions. This time it will be from the NDP.
Mr Rosario Marchese
(Trinity-Spadina): Thank you for the presentation.
You mentioned several times
that your curriculum is demanding and that excellence is achieved
by your graduates, of course. You say that because presumably
some people doubt it?
Ms
Krakauer: No.
Mr
Marchese: No one doubts it?
Ms
Krakauer: I've not had any questions doubting our
excellence; in fact, we've had universities from overseas seeking
us out to partner with us.
Mr Marchese: What about
universities? Do they doubt the excellence of your program?
Ms
Krakauer: As I mentioned, there are four universities
already that have partnerships with us. We're very pleased-the
University of Toronto, Queen's, Ryerson and the University of
Waterloo.
Mr
Marchese: I was about to mention the fact that you do
have a link with the universities and that's a good thing,
obviously-
Ms
Krakauer: Yes, it is.
Mr
Marchese: -where some colleges don't have that link with
universities and that's a problem, so that speaks well of your
program.
Ms
Krakauer: I believe it does.
Mr
Marchese: But Dr Gordon was here earlier from Humber
College and he was talking about how some of the universities
will not recognize the degree from the various colleges and that
they will have a difficult time getting into graduate work in a
university. You're saying, however, that will be easier. Is there
a problemo here?
Ms
Krakauer: I think there are two things that are
different here. We are not a community college. I have a great
deal of regard for the community colleges but as I explained, our
entrance requirements are higher and we do not have open access.
We do take the best-qualified candidate, and so I think the
universities find it easier to deal with our graduates because
they're dealing with students who have achieved a certain level
of achievement.
I might add that many of
our students already have some university. We found in a recent
survey that about 75% of our students have at least one or two or
more years of post-secondary education before they even come to
us.
Mr
Marchese: By the way, my objection to the title "Choice
and Excellence" is more connected to the allowing of private
universities to enter our market-
Ms
Krakauer: So it doesn't refer to us.
Mr
Marchese: I understand that, but out objection is
usually to that. There is no choice in terms of a majority being
able to have access to those programs because if it's a private
university and presumably they're funding their own education, it
will cost a minimum of $40,000 a year in tuition fees. So I say
to myself, "To whom does that give choice?" Not many, except the
very wealthy. In terms of excellence, we don't know whether there
is quality or not, because I'm not sure that we've seen that
greatness of quality being achieved by universities like
Phoenix.
So that's our objection to
that, just so you are aware of it. Thank you very much for your
presentation.
The Chair:
Thank you both for coming to make a presentation before us here
today.
COUNCIL OF ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from the Council of Ontario
Universities. Good afternoon and welcome to the committee.
Dr Ian
Clark: Thank you, Chair. My name is Ian Clark. I am the
president of the Council of Ontario Universities, which
represents the interests of Ontario's 17 universities. We're
delighted to appear today. I have with me Ken Snowdon, who is the
vice-president of research and analysis at the council, and Marny
Scully, who is the manager for research and analysis. Dave
Marshall, the president of Nipissing University, is planning to
join us. His plane was delayed leaving North Bay. He might get
here to answer questions at the end of my 15 minutes.
Bill 132 will make two very
significant changes to the delivery of post-secondary education
in Ontario, dealing with private universities and the extension
of limited degree-granting authority in applied areas to
colleges. In both these instances, as the government bill title
suggests-although as the honourable member previously
questioned-these changes will increase degree opportunities for
Ontario students.
Our concern, described in
our brief which we have tabled today, is essentially that the
bill, as it stands, does not provide sufficient protection for
the taxpayer or for the students. We would like to propose
amendments to the bill which would strengthen these
protections.
In May the Council of
Ontario Universities participated in the minister's consultations
and submitted a written brief. We stressed four principles at
that time: transparency in the review process; quality and how to
maintain the quality of current degree standards; the need to
limit degree-granting authority for colleges to applied degrees;
and public subsidies and the need to limit the use of scarce
public funds to public rather than private post-secondary
institutions. Let me just elaborate on those four principles as
they apply to the wording in the bill before us.
First, on transparency: the
proposed legislation does not include a requirement for
applications nor the recommendations for the Post-secondary
Education Quality Assessment Board to be made public. We in the
council believe that a number of benefits can be gained from
procedural transparency. There are other examples in legislation
that require such openness and transparency, and we think that
applications for degree-granting situations are at least as
important as applications for liquor licences, for example, where
the transparency and public nature of the applications are made
clear in the legislation.
A legislative requirement
for an open and transparent review process would provide the
public with the opportunity to review new proposals and make
comments that would help members of the board with a broader
array of perspectives on the new proposals, as well as provide
additional information through which programs and institutions
can be assessed. It will strengthen consumer protection and
ensure accountability to the taxpayer. So our recommendation here
is to include a requirement in the legislation for all
applications and board recommendations to be made public.
The second principle on
quality: in addition to an open and transparent process in order
to ensure that new, private degrees provide a level of quality
commonly associated with the Ontario degree, we believe that the
assessment process should ensure "expert" membership on advisory
and assessment panels.
1620
So we would recommend that
the legislation indicate that expert evaluators should conduct
the reviews and provide advice to the board, and that one add a
clause to section 7 which states, "The board shall include
members who have special knowledge in university education."
The third principle
regarding the limiting to applied degrees to colleges: Although
quality assessment and protection is crucial to consumer
protection for both private universities and applied college
degrees, the quality measures and degree standards should be
clearly seen as different for the applied college degree in order
to distinguish this credential from the university credential.
Without a clear understanding and statement of the difference,
there would be considerable consumer confusion regarding the two
types of baccalaureate degrees.
The act, as proposed, makes
clear this point in sections 2 and 3, and our concern is that the
exceptions, subsections 4(6) and 4(7), essentially give the
minister authority to give a community college consent to grant
any kind of degree without limitation.
In essence, this would give
more opportunity for a community college to get university status
than is available to existing affiliated or federated
universities in Ontario which wish to obtain full degree-granting
status. In fact, the legislation as is presented would give
colleges more freedom than, say, Nipissing University, which has
a limited charter by its legislation.
When we combine this
discretionary freedom implied in subsections 4(6) and 4(7) with
the lack of public scrutiny, I think you can understand why the
Council of Ontario Universities has concerns about this
significant departure from past practices.
Our recommendation would be
simply to remove subsections 4(6) and 4(7) from the bill. If the
purpose of the legislation is to provide limited applied
degree-granting to colleges, these clauses are unnecessary. In
the public consultation legislation, this was the only issue
presented and the only issue to which the council and the
universities replied. If the government has other intentions,
these intentions should be made public in order for the public to
assess and comment on the need for these exceptions clauses.
The fourth and final point
is limiting public funding for private post-secondary
institutions. Section 8 of the bill stipulates, "The giving of a
consent does not entitle the person to whom the consent is given
to any funding from the government of Ontario." However,
taxpayers will be subsidizing degree education provided by
private institutions through the Ontario student assistance
program tax credits for tuition and the potential of Ontario
research grants and other government programs.
The minister's consultation
document states, "The maximum tuition fee that will be recognized
for OSAP purposes at new degree-granting institutions will be
$4,500 in a normal academic year. This is the same maximum that
applies to additional cost recovery programs at publicly
supported institutions." The government-stated restriction on
tuition fees recognized for OSAP purposes is not stated in the
bill before us.
A recommendation would be
to change the wording in section 8 to something like, "The person
to whom consent is given is not eligible for direct provincial
government funding from any government program," something more
categorical that states that the government will not provide
these kinds of funding as opposed to "the consented person is not
entitled to."
Second, we would propose
that the legislation make clear that the tuition fee cap
recognized for OSAP purposes for private degree-granting
institutions should be stipulated in the legislation, and that
should be the same as that which applies to the publicly funded
institutions.
That ends my presentation,
Chairman. We believe the best consumer and taxpayer protection is
to ensure that there's a high standard of quality in all degree
programs before they are offered and students are enrolled. We
have recommended amendments to the legislation to achieve this
purpose.
We're happy to try to
answer any questions the committee might ask.
The Chair:
This time the questioning will be to the government.
Mrs Tina R.
Molinari (Thornhill): How much time do we have?
The Chair:
You've got about four minutes-a bit less, three-and-a-half
minutes.
Mrs
Molinari: Thank you very much for your presentation.
It's very comprehensive and there are some very detailed
recommendations that you have made throughout your presentation.
It's evident that you've read the bill and certainly have a good
understanding of it.
There are some concerns and
some questions I would ask about your comments and I'd ask you to
expand on the issue over the $4,500 maximum OSAP application that
this provides. You've stated that your recommendation is that it
be included specifically in the wording of the bill. Could you
just expand on that?
Dr Clark:
Yes. It's not a specific number because that could change over
time, but the principle, which was enunciated in the government's
consultation paper, is that the cap would be the same for private
institutions as for public institutions.
Mrs
Molinari: If it were stated in a regulation rather than
the legislation, would that address the concern that you
have?
Dr Clark:
It would go a long way toward addressing the concern. Naturally,
we would like as much as possible to be in the legislation and
therefore less subject to change over time than to rely on
regulations which are more changeable than the legislation
is.
Mrs
Molinari: Also, your comments about the applications
should be made public-I'm trying to find it in the presentation here-if you could expand
on how you envision that occurring.
Dr Clark:
Certainly. As we understand it, the quality assessment board will
receive an application from an institution. We would like the
application that the quality assessment board receives to be made
public at that time or in time for other interested parties to
comment on. Then we assume that the quality assessment board will
cause to be created an expert group of some kind, expert in that
area of university activity, to give them advice. We would like
to see that advice or that assessment to the quality assessment
board made public as well.
Mrs
Molinari: You're referring to applications for private
universities and also for applied degree granting for
colleges?
Dr Clark:
As a general principle, it would apply to everything, but we have
in mind more particularly the private institutions for the
initial application.
The Chair:
Thank you very much. Unfortunately, Mr Marshall's plane has
obviously prevented him from joining you here today, but thank
you to him for making the effort and to you for actually
achieving it. Thank you for you presentation here today.
DEVRY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from DeVry Institute of Technology.
Good afternoon and welcome to the committee. Seeing as I don't
have any names on my agenda, perhaps I can get you to introduce
yourselves for the purposes of Hansard.
Mr Peter
Brown: I certainly will. Mr Chair and members of the
committee, my name is Peter Brown and I'm president of DeVry
Institute of Technology in Ontario. Joining me today are Rick
Davey, our dean of academic affairs, and Judith Fraser, our
director of communications.
We are pleased to have the
opportunity to appear before this committee and to provide our
comments in support of Bill 132. DeVry strongly believes in
providing students with educational options and commends the
government for adopting this position. We believe this bill
contemplates a new vision for post-secondary education in the
province, a vision that emphatically reinforces the importance
that individuals, society at large and employers place upon the
values of choice, equity, flexibility and quality. We believe
these values should shape and inform our post-secondary education
system and we will work to support this initiative as best we
can.
Our support for this policy
direction and hence this legislation is based on our experience
providing post-secondary education to Ontario students.
DeVry has been a committed,
contributing and taxpaying member of Ontario's post-secondary
education system since 1956, offering coursework leading to
diplomas since its inception. DeVry's two Toronto-area campuses
currently offer six diploma programs in electronics and
computer-based business. Currently, DeVry Ontario diploma
graduates of our electronic engineering technology and our
computer information systems programs are able to transfer to
another DeVry campus for one additional semester to complete
course requirements for the bachelor of science degrees. These
degrees are conferred by the receiving campus.
While this arrangement in
part meets our students' demands for degree completion
opportunities, it's not good enough. DeVry is very concerned that
the need for students to transfer to one of our US campuses has
negative implications both for our students and for the province
and contributes to the current loss of students to jobs south of
the border.
To reinforce this point,
during the five-year period from October 1994 through June 1999,
63% of DeVry Ontario students in our electronic engineering
technology and computer information systems programs transferred
to another DeVry campus to complete the requirements for a
degree. Of these, 42% of the computer information systems
graduates and 33% of the electronic engineering technology
graduates elected to remain in the United States to work. This
represents a totally unnecessary and unwanted drain from
Ontario's skilled labour force. The passage of Bill 132 will put
in place the framework to address this situation, providing
students with another option, a better option, to complete their
degrees at home in Ontario.
1630
That's what this
legislation is all about: increasing options and providing
additional choices for students. It allows individuals greater
opportunity to select alternatives that will allow them to meet
their educational goals. Our students tell us they value choice.
They also value the credential of the degree. And they are just
about unanimous that, given the choice to remain in Ontario and
complete their degree, this is exactly where they would stay.
But students must be
assured of the quality of the degree they are pursuing and the
institution they choose to attend. Ensuring quality must be the
number one priority of the government and the new quality
assessment board.
In DeVry's view,
degree-granting institutions and private universities should be
accredited based on a rigorous set of criteria that assesses them
relative to their actual missions. Mission-based accreditation is
the process that the US DeVry Institutes are already subject to
as a member institution of the North Central Association of
Colleges and Schools. The North Central Association is one of six
regional accrediting agencies in the US, each with a mandate to
assure the public about the quality of their accredited colleges,
universities and institutes of higher education. Such
accreditation is recognized in practice by registrars across
Canada. Member institutes include the University of Chicago and
the University of Notre Dame.
The North Central
accreditation for institutions of higher education demands a
rigorous two-stage process. First, institutions must fulfill the
general institutional requirements, which include specific
expectations about an
institute's mission being appropriate for a place of higher
education. Additional requirements include appropriate policies
and practices with respect to governance, finances and public
information. And perhaps most importantly, clear expectations are
established about the educational programs, the faculty who
deliver them, and the resources that support student
learning.
However, the real rigour of
the accreditation process is ensured by the second part: an
institutional self-study that is subject to a focused evaluation
by a team of peer evaluator-consultants from other members of the
North Central Association. This self-study aims to include all
institute stakeholders in a comprehensive examination of the
institution as it fulfills its stated mission and purposes. The
association applies five criteria for accreditation. Both
outcomes assessment and a detailed set of indicators are
prescribed for each. All five must be met for an institution to
receive and/or maintain its accreditation.
The US DeVry Institutes are
currently preparing a self-study for a focused evaluation
scheduled for the summer of 2002. Each campus is reviewing
policies, practices and outcomes against five criteria, which in
turn are linked to the DeVry Institutes' mission, which is: "to
provide high quality career education, higher education programs
in business and technology to a diverse student body." Our
mission goes on to state that our "programs integrate general
education to enhance graduates' personal development and career
potential."
While we agree with other
parties, including the universities, on the need for high-quality
post-secondary institutions, clearly the DeVry mission is much
more focused on applied learning and career education than that
of a comprehensive Ontario university with its emphasis on
research, teaching and service.
Because DeVry is subject to
a mission-based accreditation process, it has an established and
credible means to demonstrate that it is accomplishing its
mission within the accepted standards of the north central
accredited degree-granting institutions. In DeVry's view, a
mission-based accreditation process is consistent with the policy
direction of Bill 132. Such a process addresses public policy
requirements while encouraging institutions that have a mission
different from the universities that currently exist in Ontario.
Rather than being judged within that existing context, they can
be judged according to their stated mission. This will allow new
degree-granting institutions that address specific needs to be
rigorously assessed to ensure the highest quality, without having
to fit into the box that is the Ontario university we know
today.
Our view is that by
encouraging mission-based accreditation of degree-education
providers, Ontario's degree-granting sector will begin a process
of diversification consistent with the government's vision.
Ontario citizens in turn will benefit. They will have more real
choice in selecting where they wish to pursue their
post-secondary education.
With respect to three final
matters, we have the following comments. First, we recommend that
terminology that is more inclusive be used in the legislation;
for example: "institute" or "college" or "polytechnic," as well
as university. This will help ensure that the perspective within
which these new post-secondary education providers are viewed is
as broad as possible. Second, it will be important that the
degree designations be established early in the process; for
example, a bachelor of technology. All parties involved will want
to know what type of degree they will be able to offer, and an
early decision by government will help to clarify this. Third,
the language in the bill, specifically sections 2 and 3,
contemplates that institutions will be able to apply to grant
degrees and/or become a private university. In our view, this is
an important distinction that helps to underline that a
degree-granting entity does not have to be a university. DeVry
agrees with this distinction.
In conclusion, DeVry
believes the government has demonstrated vision and leadership in
introducing this legislation. We are pleased to support it and
look forward to its passage. My colleagues and I appreciate the
opportunity to come this afternoon and welcome any questions you
might have.
The Chair:
Thank you very much. That does allow us about four minutes for
questioning. This time it will be for the Liberals.
Mr Levac:
Mr Brown, I won't put words in your month, but I think you
indicated a distinct concern for the students' choices and their
availability to get those degrees. Is it fair to say that's
what's been said?
Mr Brown:
Yes.
Mr Levac:
Do you agree, then, that there should be some protections built
into the bill for the students who end up having one of the
colleges or universities simply pull the plug in the middle of
the year saying, "We can't make any more money so we close
shop"?
Mr Brown:
Of course.
Mr Levac:
It's happened in my riding and they were left in the lurch. They
did not get a certificate, let alone a diploma or a degree, and
we're left with a pot full of bills.
Mr Brown:
During the consultations we made that point in spades. We fully
agree.
Mr Levac:
Do you also agree that any kind of associated college or
university that does that should never get a charter again in our
province?
Mr Brown:
I hadn't thought that far ahead. It makes sense.
Mr Levac:
Would you then agree that anyone who has had that reputation
anywhere else in the world and comes into our province to make
the same proposal should not be allowed a charter?
Mr Brown:
I have to think about that one. I'm not sure.
Mr Levac:
Finally, you made mention of equity. Do you believe that it's
almost a stacked deck when we say the word "equity" and poor
students may not be able to afford to go to these
institutions?
Mr Brown: Maybe you could just
come back a little bit.
1640
Mr Levac:
I'm deeply concerned with the wonderful institutions that have
been making presentations today, and they're all the best. I
applaud them for that, and I'm not trying to be facetious here.
Of the institutions I've been made aware of, they are excellent
institutions. In some cases, if we now move down the road of
private for-profit institutions, they may not be accessible to
those people who may indeed need that degree because that's their
gift, that's their talent, but they can't afford to go. That's
not equity.
Mr Brown:
I think affordability will continue to be an issue at all levels
of education. I heard the number $40,000 mentioned earlier this
afternoon. DeVry does not foresee those kinds of numbers in its
future. For the record, we would come in at about $10,000.
Mr Levac:
I appreciate that comment. I'm just voicing my concern that we
can say equity across the board, but you can't control a private
institution in how much they're going to charge. But if that
student has a gift in that particular area and needs that diploma
or degree to carry on, their ability to attain funds to go there
is really kind of restricted, particularly if they are
impoverished.
Mr Brown:
I think the reality of tuition will continue to be a factor in
any program-public universities, private universities,
wherever.
Mr Levac:
I wouldn't advocate completely tuition-free, but I am of the ilk
that says anyone who cannot afford to go to university has been
disadvantaged.
The Chair:
Thank you all for taking the time to come before the committee
today.
ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED ENGINEERING
TECHNICIANS AND TECHNOLOGISTS
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from the Ontario Association of
Certified Engineering Technicians and Technologists. Good
afternoon and welcome to the committee. Please proceed.
Ms Angela
Shama: Mr Chairman, members of the standing committee on
general government, ladies and gentlemen, OACETT, the Ontario
Association of Certified Engineering Technicians and
Technologists, is pleased to appear before you in support of Bill
132. I am Angela Shama, executive director of an approximately
20,000-member association representing technicians and
technologists, most of whom are graduates of the community
college system. With me at the table today is Mr Trevor Onken,
president of our association. Our comments will be very brief,
but along with the verbal comments we have included in your
package two briefs which will show our consistency of support
over the years for degrees in technology in the college system. I
assume that you've received the packages we've distributed.
The first is an OACETT
brief to the colleges of applied arts and technology, submitted
over 10 years ago, which proposed a degree-granting program for
specific colleges to be identified by the ministry. The second is
more current, having been sent to the ministry in this past year
as a response to the ministry's request for input to their
consultation paper Increasing Degree Opportunities for Ontarians.
If I may, I would refer you to a couple of important
recommendations from both those briefs.
First, from our brief to
the minister dated May 29, 2000, on page 2, paragraph 4,
regarding names of the degree and the academic institution, our
comment is, "The name should be consistent with international
nomenclature." We would appreciate your giving thought to using
the term "polytechnic institute." That same name was used in our
Vision 2000 response in that we recommended the need for a
polytechnic system.
Further, in our May 29
brief, we stated in that same paragraph, "The bachelor degree
should be the initial stage and not an associate degree." We
believe it is important that the new applied degrees be
recognized by universities toward post-graduate work and by
industry for advancement to senior management roles. Similarly,
in our response to Vision 2000 in 1989, we referred to the NAFTA,
where a minimum of a baccalaureate degree is required. We
recommend that BTech or BSc(EngT) degrees should be developed in
Ontario.
Whether it be our brief of
over 10 years ago or our recent one, our position of support for
degrees in technology within the college system has been
consistent. We are pleased to support on behalf of our
association the ministry's new initiative within the colleges of
applied arts and technology. We look forward to providing a
certification process for those new graduates from these degree
programs.
Mr Onken or myself would be
pleased to respond to any questions you might have. If I might
just add, we are very pleased with the presentation from DeVry as
well. I think you can see from our comments that we share many
similar views.
The Chair:
You are the first group to allow us enough time to actually have
a full rotation, because there are 12 minutes, or four minutes
per caucus. This time we'll start with Mr Marchese.
Mr
Marchese: Would degree-granting in that particular field
of the community colleges involve more costs for the colleges? Do
you know?
Ms Shama:
My background is from the college system, where I came from, but
I think that will certainly depend in many ways on the criteria
that are established for the colleges. Are they three-year
programs? Are they four-year programs? Will there be a greater
degree of technical content, which of course increases capital
costs, equipment costs, for a college? It's very difficult for me
to give you an answer to that. I think it really depends on what
the final product is going to look like.
Mr
Marchese: Are you assuming, where there will be
additional costs, once this government passes this bill, which it
will, that the government will be there to support those colleges with those extra
costs? Is that the assumption? Have you had chats with the
parliamentary assistant or the minister or any staff person about
that?
Ms Shama:
I'm not sure it would be appropriate for our association,
necessarily, to comment on that one. I think you need to
determine what you're prepared to support in terms of the college
system. I think public funding support is extremely important to
the college system. It's critical.
Mr
Marchese: Absolutely. We see the post-secondary
educational system as being underfunded and has been so for the
last-
Ms Shama:
Right.
Mr
Marchese: You don't say that because they won't like it.
You can't say that.
It has been underfunded for
many, many years. If this brings additional costs, I would assume
you would be worried that if somehow colleges didn't get the
additional costs, they would be unhappy-happy to have the
degree-granting, but if they don't get the additional help, they
would have to find money they don't have from other areas. That
would be a concern for you, wouldn't it?
Ms Shama:
It would certainly be a concern. We would like to see this
succeed and we would like to see the degree-granting program
succeed. In particular, we'd like to see a good offering of those
programs within the technology area of the colleges. I think
that's really important.
Mr
Marchese: Perhaps the parliamentary assistant will
assist me in helping with those questions, because she's next for
questions.
Mrs
Molinari: I'm not sure which questions he's asking for
me to respond to.
Interjection: You're not going to
help him, anyway.
Mrs
Molinari: I would be very pleased to help. I missed the
question.
I would like to
congratulate the presenters on their presentation and certainly
for submitting the brief to the minister during the consultation
process. We had extensive consultations on this bill and a number
of people joined in, not only in the consultation process that
the minister and I held in various areas across the province but
also in the submissions that came through in written format.
Certainly it is our hope and our belief that this bill, as
drafted, covers a number of issues that were raised during the
consultations, and these types of hearings will also add to any
amendments that might need to be made to the legislation as we
move forward. We appreciate your comments and your support of
some of the issues.
I believe, and the minister
believes, that this is an area that is long overdue for us to be
moving into, to offer students more choices. There is certainly a
demand from the public, businesses and industries and globally
and nationally that this is an area we should be moving toward.
Again, thank you very much for taking the time to come today and
for all the work you've done in submitting to us to help us in
developing a legislation that is workable and effective.
Ms Shama:
You're most welcome. If there's anything we can do in the future
to help, we'll certainly be there as well.
Mrs
Molinari: Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: I was also of the opinion that
establishing polytechnic institutes is something we should be
looking at, until I had a consultation with Dr Birgeneau, the new
president of the University of Toronto, last week. He had just
come from the biggest polytechnic institute, MIT. His opinion
was, coming from MIT, as well-respected as MIT is, that you
really lose a lot of breadth when you focus and overspecialize
and develop just polytechnic institutes, that there are a lot
more research opportunities and learning opportunities if you are
part of a more-than-one-focus university. Can you address that
challenge? It's making me rethink my position on that. How would
you address that?
Ms Shama:
I'm not sure I understand why it would narrow it. Perhaps our
president would like to comment on that.
Mr Trevor
Onken: Frankly, I wasn't sure what your scope was, so I
probably didn't understand the question.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: A polytechnic institute typically just
has technical studies and very little general arts, liberal arts,
languages, medicine and so forth.
Mr Onken:
Right. I catch it. Our community colleges, as you realize, do not
have that format. They are in fact designed for each individual
area of the province through their industrial contacts in those
areas that produce the type of community college graduate who
fits the industrial workplace in the area. I would not see our
Ontario polytechs changing from that.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: When you say "polytechnic institute,"
you're not speaking of overspecializing. OK. That was my
misunderstanding, then.
Mr Onken:
I'm not looking at an MIT, but certainly-can I say it?-Mohawk has
a-
Mrs
Bountrogianni: Be careful when you say "Mohawk" around
me. I'm from Hamilton.
Mr Onken:
I recognize that.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: Thank you.
The Chair:
Thank you very much for taking the time to come before us here
this afternoon and for your previous submissions as well.
1650
ONTARIO UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT ALLIANCE
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from the Federation of Students,
University of Waterloo. Good afternoon and welcome to the
committee.
Mr Mark
Schaan: Thank you. My name is Mark Schaan. I'm the
vice-president, education, for the Federation of Students,
University of Waterloo. I'm joined today by Ryan Parks, the
executive director of the Ontario Undergraduate Student
Alliance.
I'd like to thank you for this opportunity to
address you on behalf of the Ontario Undergraduate Student
Alliance and the 120,000-plus students we represent. Let me begin
by saying that the challenges post-secondary education will face
in Ontario over the next decade are daunting. A study by
PricewaterhouseCoopers indicates that in the next 10 years almost
90,000 additional spaces will be needed for university
students.
I believe the government's
move to allow private universities and colleges degree-granting
status is a response to forecasts such as these, an attempt to
avoid the infrastructure costs of investing in tomorrow's
workforce that would otherwise be required.
OUSA strongly states that
the government decision to allow private universities in Ontario
is wrong on both philosophical and practical levels. I do not
wish to take much of your time outlining the rationale for our
opposition. I will simply say this:
Right now, Ontario students
have the choice of 17 strong public universities. Over the next
decade, a government's failure to create sufficient space to meet
enrolment demands in these public institutions will not create
choice. Rather, this failure will force students to attend a
private university.
We already have the option
of attending Harvard or the University of Phoenix. Do not take
away tomorrow's students' choice to attend the University of
Waterloo, Queen's or York. Please do not take away tomorrow's
students' ability to attend Ontario's public universities.
With that being said, I did
not arrive today with any hope of the government withdrawing this
bill. I'm resigned to the fact that this government will force a
significant portion of tomorrow's university students into
private institutions or quite possibly to study out of province
or out of country. For that reason, the remainder of my remarks
will focus on how best to minimize the damage we see Bill 132
causing.
First and foremost, private
universities should have access to no public funding of any
sort-no tax incentives, no land grants, no operating grants, no
research grants. I mention research grants last because that
seems to be the most controversial point and is likely the only
point requiring some explanation. I would put forward several
points to you in this regard.
First, research dollars are
too scarce and spread too thinly already. Second, public dollars
should be spent on a public good. For-profit universities are no
good-sorry-not a public good. A Freudian slip, I guess.
Finally, for-profit
universities are a business like any other and, as such, should
not be eligible for taxpayer subsidies any more than any other
business.
A second area of concern is
quality. Everybody raises the example of the University of
Phoenix when speaking against private universities. Everyone
cites the panacea of Harvard when arguing for private
universities. We recognize that even the most token of quality
standards would exclude an institution such as the University of
Phoenix, and that Harvard probably has more pressing concerns
than setting up a satellite campus in Durham region. The truth
will lie somewhere in the middle, but by accrediting any private
institution, the government of Ontario is explicitly placing a
guarantee on their quality.
We note that Bill 132
creates a Post-secondary Education Quality Assessment Board whose
mandate will be to recommend approval or denial of consent to the
minister. We see two problems with this. First, we see no body to
ensure that quality is maintained over any period of time after
consent. For-profit universities will exist to make profit, not
to provide quality education. Of course, as the graduates of
these institutions enter the workforce, employers will be the
judge of whether this ancillary mission was fulfilled. If the
government is willing to attach its credibility by accrediting
such institutions, it must recognize that it will be held
accountable if one of these private universities turns out to be
a Phoenix in Harvard's clothing. Second, while every other
university in Ontario was created by legislative act, Bill 132
will allow private universities to be accredited by ministerial
approval. Why? Why does the transparency and accountability of
the legislative process not suit private universities?
Another major concern is
that since the government is forcing a large proportion of
tomorrow's students to study in private institutions, these
students must be eligible for graduation, regardless of market
forces. Therefore, we call on the government to require each
private institution to develop and maintain an endowment
sufficient to pay the costs of "teaching out" students already in
the system.
Perhaps the thorniest
issue, however, is that of student aid. This is what we believe:
First, since the government is forcing a large proportion of
tomorrow's students to study in private universities, we
shouldn't penalize these people further by denying them access to
public student aid. Second, it is very possible that public
student aid could become a form of unlimited government subsidy
to private universities, as their tuition is unchecked. Third,
there is a movement in this government to bring transparency to
public education institutions by publishing their student loan
default rates. We are concerned that Ontario's high-quality
public institutions may be tarnished in reputation if they are
lumped together with private institutions.
Therefore, our
recommendation to you regarding student aid for those at private
universities would be that students at private universities
should be eligible for public student aid but only to the limits
faced by students at public institutions. Finally, a separate
pool of funds should be established to distribute aid funds to
students at private institutions.
I'd like to thank you again
for this opportunity, and I'd be happy to address any questions
or comments you may have.
The Chair:
Thank you, and that does allow us lots of time for questioning.
We've got about three minutes per caucus. This time it will start
with the government members. It will be Mr Dunlop.
Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North):
Thanks for being here this afternoon.
We listened the other day
to the president of the community colleges association and we
asked her how the students in the community college system felt
about this bill, and all we heard was positive comments from her
about the legislation and about how it would be so beneficial to
the students in the community college system. Have you got any
comments on that?
Mr Schaan:
We represent eight university members from across the province
and our unanimous consent at our recent general assembly passed
the paper you have in front of you which is called Preserving the
Public Good. What Bill 132 threatens to do is remove education as
a public good and remove education as a shared responsibility,
something that we believe society has a responsibility-not an
opportunity but a responsibility-to help students with. By making
private institutions available in Ontario, our members have had
nothing but fear that this will compromise our notion of
education and our understanding of the role of the
university.
Mr Dunlop:
So you see no opportunities in this bill whatsoever?
Mr Schaan:
I think the kind of institutions we're looking to attract in
Ontario aren't the kind of institutions that will necessarily be
attracted by this bill. If we're looking for a Harvard of the
north or if we're looking for a Yale or a Princeton, you're
looking at operational costs that have required decades of alumni
and decades of endowments to try and build. Meanwhile, we're
looking at cash-strapped public institutions that are already
facing quality gaps. I see no incentive for a for-profit private
institution to come into this province with the aim of providing
quality educational opportunities for Ontario's
undergraduates.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: Welcome. Excellent presentation, as
always.
I think the part the
colleges liked was the applied-degree part. They didn't make any
reference to the private universities. they stayed away from
that.
I'd like you to comment on
the last few years with respect to the effect of the rising
tuition on students from lower-income families. There have been
three research studies done and I think one was done at your
institute. Could you talk about that for us, please?
Mr Schaan:
Yes. The University of Waterloo last year did a study based on
postal codes, correlating data from Statistics Canada, average
household income, with the populations of Ontario's universities.
What we found is that over the last 10 years we've seen a 6% drop
in Ontario of students coming from socio-economic backgrounds of
less than $50,000. At the University of Waterloo, an institution
which prides itself on its co-op program and the ability of
students to help the financing of their institution, we saw a 10%
drop, which is radical. Considering that tuition has gone up 150%
over the last number of years because of the shortfall of
funding, obviously there's a frightening trend that the
university is no longer the jurisdiction or the landscape for all
people in Ontario, but only those who can afford it.
Mr Levac:
Thanks very much for your presentation. Again, I want to
congratulate you for voicing the concerns of the students.
Earlier I asked a presenter questions about equity, questions
about availability and protection. Can you outline some of the
things beyond what you've already said today about other areas of
protection, because when we deal with a majority government, they
tend to pass bills that maybe not everybody agrees with and then
they become law. You've indicated that in your presentation. Can
you give us an outline of other things that you think might be
able to be done that would protect students?
1700
Mr Schaan:
There are a number of things we can do to ensure that both
taxpayers and students are protected at these institutions,
obviously at no public funding. But then also we need to ensure
that there's a proper information channel to students. It would
be negligent of this government to assume that simply opening the
door to private institutions means that students are well aware
of what the realities of their educational choices are. Students
need the opportunity to make choices in their post-secondary
education careers with informed decisions. Private institutions
come with no operating history, unless it's the University of
Phoenix, and we know what their operating history is like. That
means lawsuits and the mismanagement of student loan funds, so
students need to be made well aware of what their choices are.
That's one of the key protections that needs to be put in
place.
The other thing is
potential tuition maximums. I mean, if these institutions are
looking to come in and try and set up shop, they can't simply go
under the guise-unfortunately, sticker price is often associated
with quality, and just because you have high tuition doesn't
necessarily mean you have a high-quality institution. In the same
way that public institutions are regulated on how they increase
their tuition to ensure that it actually is improving quality, we
need to have some standards of how these institutions are making
money and where their profit is coming from.
Mr
Marchese: I enjoyed your presentation. One of the
objections I put forth in the legislative debates was that
normally governments introduce bills on the basis of someone in
the public or a significant section of the population saying, "We
really want this." I quite frankly haven't found too many of
those people. There was a president from a community college who
said he supports private universities-God bless, there must be a
few of them-but not vocally saying, "We want it."
You come from a student
body, you're a young guy. Have you heard young people saying,
"We're screaming for this choice. We're lacking choice and we
want it and that's why we want for-profit private universities"?
Help them out, help me out.
Mr Schaan:
We found it quite ironic that the bill was titled "choice and
excellence in post-secondary education"-I can't remember the full
title of the bill-because we agree, students aren't begging for
choice. Students are begging for quality opportunity. We have seen
the growth of some innovative and exciting new programs at the 17
public institutions we have in Ontario over the last number of
years. We've seen the growth of software engineering at my
institution and at McMaster. We've seen new programs in applied
health sciences, new programs in gerontology and health, new
programs in applied arts degrees. I think our public institutions
are doing a very fine job at ensuring that all undergraduates in
Ontario have choice in the university sector.
I think what we're lacking
from the Ontario government is a commitment to quality choices
and with quality comes increased funding. We're 59th of 60 in
funding in this province. I don't know how many times we need to
tell that and hit that home. We need to ensure that the excellent
opportunities that are being provided at our public institutions
will be met with funds to ensure that they are the quality that
undergraduates are demanding.
Students aren't looking for
more names of degrees. Students are looking for the degree they
have but want to ensure that it's of the highest quality they can
get and that's what we're asking for from this government.
Mr
Marchese: Let's stick to that point about choice again.
One of the deputants talked about the idea that this will provide
equity and so on. "Choice, equity, flexibility and quality" was
one of the comments that was made by an earlier deputant. As it
relates to private universities, as opposed to the college part
of degree granting, which is a different kind of discussion, in
my view, do you think it offers choice to students in terms of
their ability to access those private, for-profit university
programs? If it's really privately funded, they're going to have
to rely on tuition fees. In these universities we hear that it
would cost anywhere from $40,000 a year and up if it's just
privately funded alone, right? Does that offer choice to
students, or for whom?
Mr Schaan:
We agree. I don't know how many studies we've done. There's the
Guelph study, the Waterloo study. Even the Kitchener-Waterloo
Chamber of Commerce recently did a study of educational attitudes
toward post-secondary education. The overwhelming barrier to
access was not one of space at a university, although that is
becoming an increasing concern and we need to make sure that we
do fund increased spaces with the institutional requirements of
faculty and support services on top of that, not just new spaces.
But the biggest barrier to access is tuition, and if these
institutions are coming in and charging $40,000 tuition, that's
not accessibility. If we think that the student loan program is
the way to go about creating access to that, we would, frankly,
disagree because we would like to make sure that the student loan
program doesn't become a subsidy for private businesses to
operate private universities in this province. Without putting a
maximum on students' loans, all we're doing is ensuring that the
profit margins of these corporations that want to start
universities are wider, and that's not what we're looking for.
We're looking for student choice.
The Chair:
Thank you, gentlemen, for coming before us and making your
presentation today.
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from the Ontario Public Service
Employees Union. Good afternoon. Welcome to the committee.
Ms Leah
Casselman: Thank you very much. My name's Leah
Casselman, I'm president of the Ontario Public Service Employees
Union. With me today is Stephanie Blake, who's a member of our
board of directors and also an employee at Ryerson, and Jordan
Berger, who is our supervisor of research.
The Ontario Public Service
Employees Union represents community college professors and
support staff as well as thousands of university-sector workers.
We are appearing before you this evening to address Bill 132, the
Post-Secondary Education Choice and Excellence Act.
This is our third
opportunity to address this legislation. The first opportunity
came in response to the government's consultation paper on
private universities. There were a number of questions raised in
that paper but all of them can be boiled down to just one: how do
we introduce a private tier to the Ontario post-secondary
education system? We answered the minister's questions but made
it clear that our position remains that post-secondary education
should remain a publicly funded and publicly administered system
available to all qualified students.
The second opportunity came
during a shadow consultation on private universities organized by
the Ontario Post-Secondary Education Coalition, which unites
faculty, staff unions, students and other supporters of public
education. All of the participants during the shadow
consultations were clear in their opposition to the introduction
of private universities.
1710
With Bill 132, this
government shows that it has not listened to those who provide
and value quality public education in Ontario. It is interesting
to note that the Public Appointments Secretariat has already
begun the task of identifying possible candidates for the quality
assessment board, even though the legislation that creates that
board has yet to be passed by the Legislature.
Obviously, the government
feels that it must at least go through the motions of listening
to those who oppose its education agenda. So we're here today.
Although I have no confidence that our concerns will be taken
seriously, I welcome the opportunity to have our objections
entered in the public record.
First and foremost, the
current Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act specifically
prohibits a corporation from applying to set up a university in
Ontario, in case you weren't aware of that situation. This
proposed legislation would undo that prohibition.
Second, this act further
removes the post-secondary system from public scrutiny by
allowing the ministry to decide whether or not a private
institution qualifies as a university. In contrast, the existing
legislation requires these approvals to be debated in and decided
by the provincial
Legislature. This proposed change is clearly intended to reduce
the accountability of government to protect public post-secondary
education in Ontario.
The notion that problems
can be avoided by giving the ministry stronger regulatory powers
is deeply flawed. After Walkerton, does anyone believe that this
government will allow its own staff the resources and freedom
from interference necessary to preserve high standards in
post-secondary education?
Finally, if this experiment
with private universities fails, as we think it will-as we
predicted the Walkerton crisis-the provisions of NAFTA will make
it very difficult for a future, more progressive government to
undo the damage. NAFTA allows US corporations to sue provincial
governments if any future change in public policy-for example, to
return to a fully funded public higher education
system-negatively affects their anticipated profits, the almighty
bottom line.
Given all of these
concerns, why is the government so keen to pursue the path of
private, for-profit education? In addition to its unqualified
support for privatization and strong lobbying by the private
sector, the government is once again trying to avoid its
responsibility to support our cherished public services. As we
all know, the number of students applying to universities is
projected to reach unprecedented levels within the next few
years. Rather than fund the services that these students need
now, the government is looking to the private sector to take up,
and charge hefty fees for, the slack.
Are Ontarians really
demanding private education? Of course not, no more than they are
demanding private health care. All Ontarians want the best
quality public education system that we can provide as a society.
As we all recognize, support for higher education today is a
critical factor to ensure our province's success tomorrow.
Even our free market
neighbors to the south recognize the importance of higher
education. Ontario continues to rank near the bottom of the list
of states and provinces in per capita spending on education. How
can we expect our export industries to compete with those in New
York and Michigan, for example, when we starve our educational
system while they invest unprecedented amounts in their
universities and colleges?
Of course, the issue here
is not just inadequate funding. Education should do more than
just produce human widgets to fill job slots in our workplaces. A
higher education should develop full, rounded citizens who are
equipped with the critical skills they need to assume their
responsibilities to society and to reach their own maximum
potential.
Private vocational schools
already offer post-secondary programs but ignore their
responsibility to provide quality higher education. They promise
their graduates jobs, and they train for jobs alone. Yet they
fail at even that meagre objective. What other conclusion can you
draw from the fact that their students in private colleges have
the highest default rate on their OSAP loans?
There are many ways to
improve what we already have, but opening up the field to the
University of Phoenix is not one of them. If we force students to
get their education from www.edegree.com, their fly-by-night
education will eventually undermine our society and economy.
Rather, we must invest in our future, not borrow against it to
serve private interests.
On the subject of colleges
offering applied degrees, we remain cautious and concerned. While
it is not beyond the capability of Ontario colleges and
universities to work out a system of applied
degrees, such an arrangement would have to
recognize the different strengths and qualifications of the
university and college systems. Our experience with existing
applied degree programs leads us to suspect that this balance is
not being found. Nursing programs, for example, have been turned
into cash cows for certain universities, with little benefit for
the colleges that provide the bulk of the instruction. By
extending the duration of nursing studies, we are starving our
health care system of the qualified staff they so urgently
require.
Clearly, there is a crisis
in education today. But it is not caused by a lack of consumer
choice. It is caused by years of systematic underfunding. Over
the years, the provincial government has been squeezing the
colleges and universities without mercy. Classroom time has
suffered, courses have suffered, students have suffered. In fact,
students have suffered doubly. They're not getting the quality
their teachers would like to give them, because there aren't the
hours in the day and classes are too large for any significant
interaction with their instructors, and of course students
graduate today with debt loads that would have covered a pretty
decent mortgage 25 years ago.
This proposed legislation
would act as a further barrier to poor and middle-class students
by criminalizing the administration of student loans. For
example, if a single mother suspects she may occasionally have to
work more than 10 hours a week to provide for her family, the
prospect of a $25,000 fine and jail time will surely discourage
her from pursuing a degree. Mind you, the 60-hour work week would
probably look after that too.
The per capita debt of the
average student far exceeds the per capita debt carried by
taxpayers. But this government that campaigned to create the
phony debt crisis continues to ignore this growing financial
pressure on our students and their families. As a result, we are
losing a generation of students to a very real and very
individual debt crisis.
The current federal
election has shown once again that voters want no part of a
privatized health care system. Canadians clearly view education
and health care as two public services that must be preserved at
all costs. Political parties that defy the public mood must be
prepared to pay a very high cost in the court of public opinion.
OPSEU remains confident that the citizens we serve as members and
as students strongly prefer a well-funded public education system
over a patchwork of public and private educational
facilities.
1720
I will conclude by
repeating the same advice we have given in our two previous
presentations on this subject. Like medicare, our post-secondary education
system should adhere to some fundamental principles:
(1) It should be
universally available to those who qualify and who want the
opportunity.
(2) Its degrees and
diplomas should be of a standard and reputation to be accepted at
other institutions across Canada and around the world.
(3) It should have the
infrastructure and resources to offer programs that meet this
standard.
I'll repeat that, in case
you missed it. It should have the infrastructure and resources to
offer programs that meet this standard.
(4) It should be publicly
funded and publicly run.
(5) It should be accessible
to all students, so that poverty, language, family circumstances
and disability create no barriers.
If we stick to these basic
principles, which I know is a foreign concept for some, we can
build a better public education system. I urge you to work with
us to achieve that.
I do have one comment on
what's happening with private universities. There is one that
started up, called the Canada West Canine Centre. It's a school
for dog trainers, registered with the Private Post-Secondary
Education Commission. Obviously, in British Columbia, education
is going to the dogs.
I do have an instant fix
for the government today, if you're worried about finding the
money to ensure there is adequate funding in the post-secondary
system. I believe the Provincial Auditor found you have not
collected a half-billion dollars in sales taxes, which employers
have collected on your behalf. If you got the staff and went out
and got the money, you'd have enough for post-secondary
education. It would solve all your problems and certainly a whole
bunch of ours.
The Chair:
That leaves us about three minutes for questions. This time the
rotation takes us to the Liberals.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: Unfortunately-or fortunately, depending
on which side of the House you sit-this is going to pass. It's a
majority government. Are there any amendments you can develop
which will minimize the damage done by private universities? That
is basically what we've come to.
Mr Jordan
Berger: We would like to see the quality assessment
board made as firm as possible, so that it has good
representation from qualified academics from the public system.
If they are going ahead with this change, they need to take a lot
of care to make sure that board is actually functioning as an
overseer. You really are putting the future value of an Ontario
degree in question. That would be one major area we would like to
see some action on.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: The Council of Universities voiced a
similar amendment. Do you have any thoughts on amendments or
additions to the legislation with respect to protecting students
financially from the strong possibility of private institutions
folding, as they have in the past.
Mr Berger:
Obviously, there has to be protection. If the government
authorizes this move to a private system, I think the position of
OPSEU would be that they should assume ultimate liability for
institutions that go belly-up.
One of the changes that I
think the president has already mentioned is a real concern about
the criminalization of OSAP. The system is too tight as it is,
and it's no surprise that some people have to work a few extra
hours or find some exception just to to provide for their
families or themselves and to study. That's an area where we
would like to see some changes as well.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: Many more students I knew, as well, were
actually working overtime illegally to make ends meet and still
collecting OSAP. It points to the high tuition more than to their
being criminals or trying to defraud the system.
The government does have
some protection in the legislation for students, but maybe the
government can answer this question. Is it the government that
will take up the liability, or is it the institution that will be
expected to pay the students if it closes?
Mrs
Molinari: Could you repeat the question, please?
Mrs
Bountrogianni: The way the legislation reads now, if a
private university goes bankrupt and leaves, will the government
assume liability-in other words, give back the tuition to the
students-or will it be the bankrupt institution? I know there is
something in the legislation.
Mrs
Molinari: Before a private institution is granted
status, a bond will be set up for student protection. The quality
assessment board will ensure that all those things are in place
before recommending to the minister that the institution to be
granted status.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: That wouldn't be like the bond you were
supposed to have on all those companies, which you were supposed
to be collecting for the Ministry of the Environment?
Mrs
Molinari: Am I responding to questions?
The Chair:
Actually, our time is up. Thank you very much for coming before
us again to make a presentation.
Ms
Casselman: It's our pleasure.
GLENN GOULD PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from the Glenn Gould Professional
School. Good afternoon and welcome to the committee.
Dr Jack
Behrens: Good afternoon, Mr Chair and honourable
members. I would like to introduce my colleagues from the Royal
Conservatory of Music: Shannon Paterson, the general manager of
the Glenn Gould Professional School, and Rennie Regehr, the dean
of the school. In light of the presentation two presentations
back, I hope the fact I have a PhD from Harvard won't be held
against me.
We appreciate this
opportunity for the Royal Conservatory of Music to support Bill
132, the Post-secondary Education Choice and Excellence Act,
2000. It's a very timely act, and it recognizes the changes in
higher education that
are underway in Ontario and elsewhere.
It's becoming clear that
the most successful institutions will be those that can adapt to
and cope with change and society's demands and thereby offer
high-quality education and training to students both within
Ontario and from elsewhere.
Higher education is
becoming more individualized and tailored to the needs and
aspirations of individual students. There will be less emphasis
on studying prescribed courses for prescribed numbers of hours in
prescribed lecture halls. With access to computers and the
Internet, anyone may now have access to a wealth of facts. Facts,
however, are not a synonym for knowledge.
The most renowned
professors and practitioners will likely be more and more
associated with two or several institutions, with costs perhaps
shared proportionately.
It is becoming clear that
awards, grants and loans will follow students rather than
institutions. In this regard, we support the concept that
students should be able to utilize support, which should be
available to all, based on common criteria. They should be able
to utilize this at the post-secondary institution of their
choice.
We also applaud the
government's intent that Bill 132 be enabling rather than
restrictive
We welcome the opportunity
this bill provides for the Royal Conservatory of Music to apply
for degree-granting status. Founded in 1886, the RCM, which until
1947 was known as the Toronto Conservatory of Music, is the
largest and oldest self-supporting institution of its kind in
Canada. In 1994, the Frederick Harris Music Publishing Co was
donated to the conservatory. The modern era began in 1991 with
the re-establishment of its independence from the University of
Toronto through an act of the Ontario Legislature. Under the
direction of Dr Peter Simon, the president and CEO, it has gained
financial stability and has refocused its activities on a model
of interrelated business units which include: the Royal
Conservatory of Music examinations, which serve more than 100,000
Canadians annually; learning through the arts, which is in the
school systems from coast to coast; the community school; and the
Glenn Gould Professional School, which we represent.
This year, the Glenn Gould
Professional School has an enrolment of 179 students: 132 are
Canadians from 10 provinces; 47 students are from 15 countries,
and of the 47, 15 are from the United States. It's interesting to
note that of those who apply to the Glenn Gould Professional
School, half do not apply anywhere else. That does not mean that
they get admitted, of course, but it does mean that they are
focused and have identified a school which they believe will be
helpful to them. Our students are talented and motivated. Faculty
who teach for us and also teach for universities in Ontario tell
us that our students are in no way inferior and in fact are
sometimes more highly motivated.
While we believe our
curriculum is unique and does not parallel precisely those of
Ontario's colleges of applied arts and technology, there are some
commonalties, as may be apparent from our mission statement,
which is on page 7 of the prospectus that has just been
distributed. Our mission is to train performing musicians for
successful careers, to provide artistic leadership skills and to
inspire commitment to the transformation of contemporary
society.
1730
We believe we are
complementary to but do not duplicate university programs. Among
the advantages that students find in studying with the Glenn
Gould Professional School is that we are one of the only major
international schools to offer systematic training in
communication skills, technology and teaching. We provide the
skills that students need to be employable and
entrepreneurial.
Our average class size is
10. We provide half again as much private instruction in voice or
instruments as most institutions, whether in Canada or
elsewhere.
We have a roster of
national and international visiting artists who present master
classes, workshops and lectures that are perhaps unparalleled
anywhere. This allows our students direct access to the
professional world and connections leading to employment.
Students enrolled in our
four-year performance diploma program also have the opportunity
to obtain a bachelor of music degree in performance or
composition through British Columbia Open University, with which
we have an articulation agreement. BCOU is a member of the
Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.
Recently, the Ministry of
Canadian Heritage has designated us as a national training
institution. It seems somewhat ironic, therefore, that we are not
permitted at the present moment to offer our own degree, as much
as we have that rather unique distinction.
Diplomas, as I am sure you
have heard in other presentations, are not widely recognized
outside of Canada, it's unclear what they really mean, whereas
baccalaureate and masters' degrees have more or less universal
significance. In this rather incongruous and strange situation,
we believe that we are competitive on an international footing,
and we strongly urge that our recommendation that we be given
degree-granting status be considered.
We believe that the
Post-secondary Education Quality Assessment Board and its review
panel should be cosmopolitan in outlook. It should include
international members and members of professional organizations
and associations from the disciplines under review. The Glenn
Gould Professional School within the past few years has been
scrutinized by external reviewers on behalf of the Ontario Arts
Council, the British Columbia Open University and twice for the
Minister of Canadian Heritage, all of whom have been highly
positive and even laudatory. We look forward with anticipation to
being considered for degree-granting status under the provisions
of Bill 132. Accordingly and naturally, we support this
initiative.
The Chair:
That certainly leaves us time for questions. This time the
rotation will begin with Mr Marchese.
Mr Marchese: Just a few
questions. By the way, I'm a big fan of the Royal Conservatory,
obviously. I went there once for voice lessons. I used to sing
Tom Jones. I ruined my voice singing Tom Jones.
Dr
Behrens: We'll take you back for a visit. It has been
transformed, perhaps.
Mr
Marchese: It didn't help me, but that's because I'm the
problem, not the teachers.
What is the difference in
your programming from those programs offered by-
Interjections.
Mr
Marchese: Mr Dunlop, sorry. Is everything OK?
Mr Dunlop:
I just couldn't see you doing Tom Jones. Sorry.
Mr
Marchese: Hard to picture?
What is the difference in
your program versus those offered in colleges or
universities?
Mr Rennie
Regehr: It's much more practical. Our students do a lot
more playing. They have much more interaction with professionals
and artists in the field. We have a lot of internationally
recognized guests coming in to give classes, to conduct our
orchestra and that sort of thing. We feel that gives them a much
closer look at the real world, so to speak, and it often
provides-because contacts get made, relationships are built-our
students options when they are finished their studies here. I
think that's quite different.
Mr
Marchese: Do community colleges or universities object
to your perhaps providing degrees? Do you expect it? Have you had
those discussions?
Mr Regehr:
I think there is some feeling that they would rather we not be
there with the degrees.
Mr
Marchese: Have you had discussions with them?
Ms Shannon
Paterson: We already do offer a degree through our
articulation agreement with the British Columbia Open University,
so they've had to deal with that situation for the past few years
already.
Mr
Marchese: Right. So that was good because you set a
precedent with the university, obviously, with whom you work. But
that hasn't necessarily helped with other universities here in
Ontario or other colleges, has it?
Dr
Behrens: We could probably say they are less than
enchanted.
Mr
Marchese: What kinds of support do you expect from the
government, other than your ability to provide a degree? Anything
else?
Mr Regehr:
No. We are not expecting any operating funding at all.
Ms
Paterson: Currently we are supported by the national
program, through the Canadian heritage fund. We are hoping that
will continue.
The Chair:
Thank you for bringing the perspective of your unique
organization before us here today.
Committee members, I just
want to inform you that we've had a request from Mr Kwinter to
consider meeting next Monday to deal with his bill, so I'm going
to be convening a subcommittee meeting tomorrow to see if all
parties are amenable to that. Pending those discussions, the
committee stands adjourned until next Wednesday at 3:30.
