Madam President and CEO,
Ladies and gentlemen,
I was pleased to accept your invitation to meet with you at the annual meeting of the AUCC, an association that plays such an important role in strengthening higher education in Canada. I feel right at home, for a number of reasons. First of all, as Quebec's minister of post-secondary education and science, I had the opportunity to talk with you at a previous annual meeting, in 1992, in Vancouver, of which I have many happy memories. And your President and CEO, Claire Morris, to whom I extend warmest greetings, was Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the department I now lead. It has always been a pleasure for me to meet with leaders of post-secondary institutions. I see some new faces, but also many people who remind me of the wonderful years when I was involved with post-secondary education on a daily basis and had very productive experiences of cooperation.
In inviting me here today, you knew I would not be making any specific announcements, as training and post-secondary education are files under the purview of my colleague at Human Resources and Skills Development, the Honourable Belinda Stronach. Nor do I have any new or specific messages with regard to intergovernmental relations and post-secondary education. Instead, I plan to share a number of convictions about post-secondary education in Canada. I also want to talk simply about some concerns, or need for clarification, relating to those convictions. I will thus leave you, as one does among friends and as is necessary when there is agreement on the basics, with a number of questions that I feel would be useful to explore so as to advance the Canadian consensus with respect to post-secondary education.
I have three personal convictions that I wish to share with you today. I say personal, because they truly express what I think, in light of my experience and of the values I firmly hold. But they are also the subject of a consensus taking shape throughout the country. While some of them may seem self-evident, let there be no mistake: agreeing on the basics is never insignificant. Indeed, it ensures we are all onside on what is really important, that we have the same take on realities and share converging goals. It is the only way to make progress on avenues for action, as there is rarely unanimous agreement on the choice of means.
In short, these three convictions are as follows: 1) post-secondary education has become a key issue for the future of Canadians; 2) we absolutely need to devote more resources to post-secondary education in Canada; 3) there are many stakeholders in post-secondary education in Canada, and they need to collaborate and work in concert with one another as real partners. Now I would like to briefly explain each of those statements, identify issues they raise and – because I want to leave you with some homework! – ask you a number of questions.
1. Post-secondary education is a key issue for the future of Canadians
In Canada and throughout the world, there is growing awareness that knowledge and skills are now the key to prosperity and success. We talk about the "knowledge economy," with the conviction that knowledge and those that master or create it are now the number-one resource, the only resource that can give us an advantageous position in a globalized and highly competitive world. Current economic teaching rightly talks about "human capital," from which the greatest economic and social dividends are expected. It is people, after all, who control innovation, productivity and growth. So people need to be the focus. And in today's context of demographic change and an ageing population, that necessitates greater participation by groups currently under-represented, and for capitalizing on the potential of new immigrants.
This economic concern is to a great extent the basis of the Government of Canada's interest in post-secondary education and skills development. But it is obviously not the only reason. After all, widespread participation in post-secondary education also yields substantial social benefits. We know, for example, that there are direct links between education levels and such major realities as poverty rates, dependence on government assistance, crime rates, and better health; in short, everything that affects our quality of life. We have an increasingly better understanding of the impact of education levels and schooling on many aspects of the lives of individuals and communities. In terms of generating and distributing wealth, there is really no better investment than post-secondary education. For that reason, we must ensure that this precious asset is accessible to all Canadians, throughout the country. This is part and parcel of the meaning of a federation, and that is why the development of post-secondary education is so important to the Government of Canada.
These economic and social perspectives, which we are committed to building on, must obviously not make us lose sight of the very real cultural, personal and collective impact of any successful education measures. Personally, I have always felt that education in general, and post-secondary education in particular, do not need to be embarrassed about what they are, which is essentially an educational enterprise. After all, the ultimate goal of education is the individual engaged in the learning process. It is that person's development, access to skills, the capacity to live a full informed life, active participation in democratic life, professional development and contribution to society. And the joy of learning and understanding is important as well! For all these reasons, the primary purpose of the institutions you lead is the development and learning of their students. John Newman was right: without students, there is no university. I am strongly convinced of that.
While there is broad consensus on the importance of post-secondary education for Canadians' lives and future, the same cannot be said for the arguments advanced to demonstrate and establish that fact. Socio-economic arguments, which are largely advanced by governments and businesses, as well as academic leaders, are obviously not universally supported on your campuses. There are questions in the academic community as to whether espousing prevailing arguments threaten to divert post-secondary education from its true mission and engender "mercantile" conceptions of academic research and teaching. Academic leaders are even reproached with "selling their souls" – and too cheaply, at that!
You know all of that better than I, but I feel it is important to talk about it, because efforts in the post-secondary education field are too important and too demanding for us to be unclear about the goals we are pursuing. All of us have to make sure we understand and share converging visions, which are the key to mobilizing energies and resources. To that end, would it not be useful for academic leaders, now more than ever, to forge consensus on the goals, role and importance of post-secondary education? In convincing more Canadians of the key role of post-secondary education and its extensive impact on their own lives, primary stakeholders naturally have their own views. It would be unfortunate if academics themselves neglected certain aspects of a mission that no one is better placed to promote and explain than they are. Such a commitment by primary stakeholders in your institutions may well be required to bring academic communities onside, as well as a more balanced understanding of the issues involved.
And so I leave you with this first question, which is also an invitation. Do you think it appropriate to contribute more to the emerging consensus on the importance of post-secondary education by thoroughly demonstrating its importance, based on your own understanding of your mission? I for one sincerely hope you will.
2. We need to devote more resources to post-secondary education in Canada
We have a very solid post-secondary education system in Canada. Canadian institutions enjoy an excellent reputation worldwide and in international organizations. And that reputation is well deserved. According to G-8 and OECD data, for example, we have the highest enrolment in post-secondary educational institutions and the highest percentage of graduates. Canada is also among the OECD countries that spend the most on education, both per-capita and as a percentage of GDP. Canada also leads the G-7 in terms of research and development conducted in post-secondary educational institutions, with 25% of its research capacity located in universities. That's a higher proportion than most other countries, and I don't need to tell you how that creates an excellent research environment.
These are measurable, quantifiable facts, but we must not overlook the more qualitative dimensions of our performance. For example, our graduates are recognized and welcomed in the best universities and the largest technology firms in the world, our professors and researchers are highly respected, and indeed coveted. And you don't have to spend much time abroad to see how esteemed and attractive Canadian institutions are. We need to salute these achievements and all those who make them possible.
And yet we in Canada do not invest in post-secondary education to the same extent as our American neighbours – and we know it is important to compare ourselves first against those who share the same North American environment. According to AUCC data, U.S. governments invest CAN$5,000 more per university student than Canadian governments. Tuition fees give U.S. institutions CAN$3,000 more per student, compared against net revenues from tuition fees for Canadian universities. That makes U.S. institutions CAN$8,000 per student better off overall in terms of available resources. That is a very big gap, and it means that U.S. universities can allocate more resources to improving the quality of teaching and services provided to their students.
The Government of Canada's commitments to post-secondary education are long-standing, as is the assistance it provides to provincial and territorial governments, which have constitutional jurisdiction for providing quality education services. As far back as 1966, at a First Ministers' Meeting, Prime Minister Pearson clearly set out the rationale for the Government of Canada's interest: to develop policies and measures to ensure economic growth, full employment and prosperity; to promote equal opportunity for all Canadians, wherever they live; to ensure interprovincial mobility of students; and to prepare young people for productive jobs. Those reasons are just as relevant today. And they continue to sustain and inform the Government of Canada's actions to promote those objectives.
You well know the main levers the Government of Canada has used and continues to use for that purpose: tax point and cash transfers to provincial and territorial governments; student assistance (loans, tax measures, grants) and; direct support for various aspects of post-secondary education, mainly for research (granting councils, Canada Foundation for Innovation, chairs and centres of excellence program, indirect costs). When all that financial support is added up, it accounts for 25% of all post-secondary education spending in Canada. That's major, and it makes the Government of Canada far more than just as spectator or a mere bystander. The Government of Canada is clearly a partner in post-secondary education in Canada and it has every intention of remaining so, as it is convinced that its support is essential to maintaining a quality post-secondary education system. And it is very clear on that point: it shares the growing consensus that Canada needs to invest more in post-secondary education.
That being said, the question of how to do so springs to mind, and on that front there is much less of a consensus. Not everyone agrees, for example, that raising tuition fees would be a good idea. With respect to the federal government specifically and the support it provides, opinion is also mixed as to the type of support that would be best. Some are convinced that payments under the Canada Social Transfer is the path to take, essentially because they would be especially respectful of provincial and territorial jurisdiction and policies and help the most to assist provinces and territories in funding services they are responsible for. There are fears, however – I know on the part of some of you, – that unconditional transfers will be used for other ends and that such "diversions" cannot be prevented. Others believe that student assistance is the most effective lever, as it directly gives students and families the means to overcome financial barriers and access to post-secondary education, and feel it respects both provincial and territorial jurisdiction and the objective of equal opportunity inherent in the very ideal of federalism. Others favour direct support – so-called targeted programs, especially for research. Rather than throwing money into a "bottomless pit," the thinking goes, recognized specific needs are targeted and solutions are found that really "make a difference" and are not subject to the whim of provincial and territorial budget choices. On the other hand, some people believe that this in fact constitutes direct intervention, with structural implications that are not necessarily in line with provincial and territorial priorities, or even institutions themselves.
These are familiar debates, to be sure, and it is quite normal that they take place within the Government of Canada itself, at the very time it is looking to participate more in the efforts needed, with a view to effectiveness, fairness and harmony. My colleague the Finance Minister has expressed that the government is not inclined towards large increases in transfers to the provinces. And that brings me to my second question: what do post-secondary education leaders feel are the most appropriate levers for possible increased financial support by the federal government?
Indeed, many of you come to Ottawa to express your concerns and highlight your preferences. And you know better than I that, while you may have the same take on what is needed, that is not true with regard to demands and expectations. It would be more helpful to have a clearer understanding of academic leaders' position on this issue. At the very least, privately expressed opinions should be discussed and debated among themselves. In terms of positions, there is currently a certain cloudiness that is making it more difficult to implement a nevertheless growing consensus on the need to invest more in post-secondary education in Canada.
3. There are many stakeholders in post-secondary education, and they need to consult one another as real partners.
The most cursory glance shows that post-secondary education straddles numerous areas of responsibility and hence requires the engagement of equally numerous actors. One cannot simultaneously be at the centre of major issues and isolated in some sort of secret garden. Many groups and bodies have a perfectly legitimate interest in post-secondary education. Indeed, the list seems to get longer on a regular basis. There are the institutions themselves, first of all, with their students, professors, researchers and all their staff; governments, in accordance with their own jurisdictions; families and communities; businesses; professional corporations, social and community groups, the general public, and everything that falls under the heading of "civil society." That is a lot of people! It is rather encouraging, to see this coming together of all those with excellent but different reasons who all have an interest in post-secondary education.
The call for more concerted action is nothing new. It can even be said to have inspired numerous meetings, forums, summits, and strategic meetings of all kinds, where people have tried to understand and come closer to one another, and sometimes also to position themselves in response to public opinion or a stakeholder they have sought to influence. The desire is often expressed for governments to lead by example and work together, rather than indulging in endless squabbling. Such a desire addresses universities as well, which it is hoped will work together rather than in competition or in a lack of solidarity, especially when new resources are announced. Calls for collaboration come from all sides.
For its part, the federal government is convinced that, to advance post-secondary education, partnership approaches are a must, and it is fully prepared to commit to them. This process is guided by the principles of solidarity, flexibility, respect for jurisdictions and accountability of all actors.
That being said, it is not obvious which path to take. Indeed, there is still ambiguity and mistrust that needs to be eliminated, so that a basic desire for consultation is no longer seen as intrusion, and a basic legitimate affirmation of autonomy and jurisdiction is no longer seen as a refusal to cooperate. More basically, we need to find together appropriate forums for identifying common and convergent lines of action to develop post-secondary education in Canada. Canadians naturally expect the efforts of institutions, governments and other stakeholders to be geared in the same direction, and for us to reach agreement on how to be accountable for our successes and failures.
I know the post-secondary education sector well enough to know that the very expression of such a desire for cooperation and consultation may spark concern or even suspicion among some stakeholders. Institutions fear the intrusion of external stakeholders that they feel are burdensome or distracting. Provincial and territorial authorities wonder whether this will throw a wrench in the process and trivialize their own jurisdictions. Federal authorities are discouraged to have to "sign blank cheques" without being able to report to citizens on how the transferred funding is used. Student or professional groups are wary of limitations and measures that may threaten progress achieved. Businesses are surprised by how academic collegiality works and find academic processes rather "complicated." And this is far from an exhaustive list of perceptions that end up cluttering the scene and paralyzing action.
This is the third question I want to leave you with: would it not be helpful for academic leaders to weight in as well on the best way of promoting and achieving the consultations and partnerships that are needed? They could express their opinions on the best way to use existing forums to help us coordinate our activities; or, what new forum or new event should be created to achieve better progress.
* * * * * * * * *
This is what I wanted to share with you today: convictions backed up by the broad consensus throughout Canada. But also questions and considerations, on which your own thoughts could surely help all of us, including my government, to find the most effective means to provide post-secondary education with the resources it absolutely needs to rise to present and future challenges.
I am sure you understand that the federal government is convinced wholeheartedly that the key to our future to a very great extent lies in high-quality post-secondary education that is accessible, solid and delivers results. And I am sure you understand that we want to work with provincial and territorial governments, to support them and help them fulfil their responsibilities in this field. Canadians expect all of us to work together as partners, giving priority to their needs and expectations.
I call on the AUCC to firmly commit to that path. Its informed, credible contribution is essential, as it brings together leaders of institutions for which learning and research are a daily reality, and where the front-line troops of learning are engaged, namely students and everyone who accompanies them and guides them in their endeavours.
Thank you for your warm welcome and your attention. I wish you every success for the rest of your meeting.