HANSARD

University Funding (Results of Recent Survey Poll)

Printed and Published by Nova Scotia Hansard Reporting Services

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

Mr. Ronald Chisholm (Chairman)

Mr. Brooke Taylor

Mr. Cecil O'Donnell

Mr. Frank Corbett

Mr. Howard Epstein

Ms. Joan Massey

Mr. Keith Colwell

Mr. Leo Glavine

Ms. Diana Whalen

[Mr. Cecil O'Donnell was replaced by Mr. Gary Hines.]

[Mr. Frank Corbett was replaced by Mr. William Estabrooks.]

In Attendance:

Mrs. Darlene Henry

Legislative Committee Clerk

Mr. Gordon Hebb

Legislative Counsel

WITNESSES

Ms. Danielle Sampson

National Executive Representative, Canadian Federation of Students

Mr. Bernie Davis

President, Association of Nova Scotia University Teachers

Mr. Ken Clare

Representative, NSGEU Post Secondary Occupational Council

HALIFAX, TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 2005

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

9:00 A.M.

CHAIRMAN

Mr. Ronald Chisholm

MR. CHAIRMAN: Welcome to the Committee on Human Resources meeting. For the record, maybe we can go around the table, starting with Mr. Estabrooks.

[The committee members introduced themselves.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first thing we have on our agenda is the appointments to agencies, boards and commissions.

Mr. Taylor.

MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, to the Department of Education Apprenticeship Board, I so move Gerald L. Cormier as a board member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

MR. GARY HINES: Mr. Chairman, to the Department of Health, Prescription Monitoring Board of Nova Scotia, I so move Dr. Marco Chiarot, Patrick King, Ruth Shea, Ronald Surette and Dr. Rodney Wilson as board members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, to the Department of Justice, Human Rights Commission, I so move Prem Dhir and Robert Hannigan as commissioners.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question?

MR. KEITH COLWELL: Could I ask a question?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure.

MR. WILLIAM ESTABROOKS: Mr. Chairman, I have a question, too.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Mr. Colwell.

MR. COLWELL: I would like to know how many applicants we received in total.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It should be in the book.

MR. COLWELL: Okay. I just want it on the record, that's all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There were 21 male and 13 female who applied.

MR. COLWELL: Okay, thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Estabrooks.

MR. ESTABROOKS: I would like to compliment - this is a bit tongue in cheek but I think we have to have a little fun in this business once in a while - Robert Hannigan, obviously, lists his accomplishments there. You know one of his great accomplishments was he served as a campaign chairman and manager for MLA Rodney MacDonald in 1999, he's back at it again in 2003 when he is the Minister of Tourism and Culture. You know, to Mr. Hannigan's credit, it's listed right there. It's listed under his boards and committee work and I suppose his accomplishments. So let's point out the fact that Mr. MacDonald has somebody there who he has brought forward, an appropriate way to recognize and perhaps reward your campaign manager.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Very good point, I would suggest, Mr. Estabrooks. Is there any further discussion on the motion?

Hearing none, are you ready for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

MR. COLWELL: I don't think so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I didn't hear anything from the members of the Official Opposition.

MR. COLWELL: Could we have a recorded vote then?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, we will have a recorded vote.

[Mr. Chairman calls the roll.]

YEA NAY

Mr. B. Taylor Mr. W. Estabrooks

Mr. G. Hines Ms. D. Whalen

Mr. R. Chisholm Mr. L. Glavine

Mr. K. Colwell

MR. CHAIRMAN: For, 3. Against, 4.

The motion is defeated.

Mr. Taylor.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, just on protocol, I guess more than anything else, on that particular motion, did one of the names carry?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Apparently not. No, they were brought forward en bloc.

MR. TAYLOR: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if I could move Prem Dhir as Human Rights Commissioner, the first name on the list, with the indulgence of the committee?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there agreement by the committee?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

Mr. Dhir has been appointed to the Human Rights Commission.

MR. HINES: Mr. Chairman, to the Department of Natural Resources, Shubenacadie Canal Commission, I so move Keith S. Manchester, John F. O'Connor and Darren Schives as commissioners.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

That concludes the appointments to the ABCs.

We do have some guests with us today. We have Danielle Sampson, the National Executive Representative of the Canadian Federation of Students. Bernie Davis, I'm not sure, you are with the university teachers, I believe?

MR. BERNIE DAVIS: Yes, the Association of Nova Scotia University Teachers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We also have Ken Clare, a representative of the NSGEU. We will start our presentations. How we usually handle our presentations, we allow maybe 10 or 15 minutes for our guests to do a presentation. Then we open the floor up to questions, allowing each caucus about 10 minutes to start for questions. So whoever from your delegation wants to start, you have the floor.

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: I guess I win that one. I would like to thank the standing committee for having us here. We appreciate the opportunity to address you on this vital issue of post-secondary education once again. The Canadian Federation of Students, the Association of Nova Scotia University Teachers and the Nova Scotia Government & General Employees Union has formed a post-secondary coalition to fight for more government funding, lowering of tuition fees, and better accessible quality education.

This past year has been a busy one. We have seen the signing of a memorandum of understanding between the Council of Nova Scotia University Presidents and the Department of Education which brought much-needed stabilization to university funding but unacceptable increases in student tuition fees as well. From extensive polling we did this February, sponsored by our three organizations, we learned that Nova Scotians believe that tuition fees are too high and that post-secondary education is out of the reach for many.

The federal budget has mandated a considerable increase to federal funding, specifically earmarked for post-secondary education, and our Legislature has also resolved that those federal funds focus on tuition fees, an implementation of a needs-based grant system, and to assist with apprenticeship training. It's with this background that we came to speak to you today about federal Bill C-48 and provincial Bill No. 207.

As you should well know - as we have been here many times - Nova Scotia tuition fees are the highest in the country, an average of $6,000, and until as of late, Nova Scotia's students had anticipated seeing their tuition fees raised to over $7,000 with the memorandum of understanding in the next three years. By many accounts, our provincial government contributes amongst the lowest funding in the country. This combination has left our institutions underfunded, falling apart and out of reach for many Nova Scotians.

The numbers of those who are left out or forced to leave our post-secondary institutions are alarming. Our recent poll found that in the last two years alone, more than 40 per cent of respondents had themselves or someone in their family denied a post-secondary education because of financial barriers. These are shocking numbers. These are Nova Scotians who aspire to get an education and are unable to because this government has refused to make it accessible. This year, however, I think we have a unique opportunity to change those trends. Finally, the government is willing to play a more active role in education policy and has been forced to make post-secondary education a Canadian priority.

Nova Scotia will see up to $34.5 million this year to reduce tuition fees, implement grants, and assist with apprenticeship training. This money will not only help more low- and middle-income students enter the system, but will help offset the shortage in the labour market that we've come to see. We have a growing need for skilled tradesmen and medical professionals and we've seen many young, educated people leave the province to pay off their enormous student debts.

We must pressure the federal government to give Nova Scotia its fair share of the money by distributing it on a per student and not per capital basis. The current funding formula is unfair and does not account for the fact that Nova Scotia is a net importer of students and should be given adequate funding for educating those students. Although this money is not a stable source of funding, I'd advise you to look at it as a bridge, something to hold us over for the next two years, until the federal government commits to increasing the social transfer and give us more funding for post-secondary education.

It is our recommendation that this funding go directly to reduce the costs of higher education for all students. There should be a legislated tuition fee freeze, followed by subsequent reductions for all students, including those left out of the memorandum of understanding. We must ensure this money is spent wisely and efficiently.

The adoption of Bill No. 207 was a great start, sending a clear message to Nova Scotians and to the federal government that this money will be spent as intended. This time, however, the government must make meaningful consultation with faculty, staff and students. During the debate on Bill No. 207, the Honourable James Muir said, this is going to be a lot of work and we're going to need some advice on how to do it, and we'd like to take him up on that offer.

We must be included in the process that has already begun, this money must reach the most students possible in order to make a positive impact in the lives of Nova Scotia families. I would like to hand it over now to Bernie Davis for a moment.

[9:15 a.m.]

MR. DAVIS: Thank you. First, it's very valuable that universities have a multi-year commitment on funding, universities haven't had that since the funding formula was announced in April 1997. It has been a long time wondering what the university would be getting from the government next year, or the year after. That is the good thing about the memorandum of agreement.

The problem with it is it is simply based on percentage increases on what the funding formula found universities were like between 1994 and 1997. Since then, the government has just been giving money and they haven't looked again at the formula. Consequently, universities are being funded on the basis of what they were doing in 1995-96 - they've changed. Treated this way the formula basically becomes less fair every year, it really does need revision.

I'll give one example, the formula was supposed to provide financial incentives to universities. Foreign students at that time were 4 per cent, they discounted those in doing their calculation. They said the universities could keep any monies they could collect from a foreign student in exchange. This has provided an incentive to universities to recruit heavily internationally because it's outside the formula as the formula is being applied. Basically, it's being applied on the student proportions of 1995-96, so it's to the university's advantage to do this.

There is nothing wrong with more international students. What's wrong is providing the university this kind of incentive. In leaving the funding formula unchanged the incentives provided by government are the opposite of what they intended, so they're basically just harming what they set out to accomplish. I mentioned excluding professional program tuition, presumably this also would cause those universities to increase their numbers, but the resulting student debt is going to drive those professionals away from Nova Scotia.

School teachers don't carry as large a debt when they graduate as lawyers or doctors, but 50 per cent of the B.Ed.s Nova Scotia turns out take their first job out of province. One reason indeed is with higher salaries elsewhere, it's easier to pay off their debt, so letting students go heavily into debt is a very bad policy.

The other point is there are a number of things mentioned in the memorandum's Clause 19, research attracting under-represented groups, credit transfer, it's not likely these can be successfully addressed by a number of university presidents sitting around a boardroom. We really need wider consultation, we need consultation with students, with

faculty, with university employees, in the case of under-represented groups with the under-represented groups themselves.

I would like to say one kind word for a very large invisible minority in Nova Scotia with respect to university education, rural Nova Scotians. They have a much more difficult time getting to university than those who are lucky enough to be born in metro.

The last thing, of course, is the fee increases allowed by the memorandum, given the money that has been brought in by Bill C-48, these increases no longer make any sense, they can no longer be justified. But in renegotiating the memorandum, including Clause 12, a number of us would like to be at the table. You're not getting a fair view of the university community if the only person at the table is the president. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anything further?

MR. KEN CLARE: Yes, I have a couple of things to add, really, just a minute or two to reiterate some of the ground that we've gone over before as a result of the survey, the survey of 800 Nova Scotians that was carried out in February and we've been talking about it in March and since. We've circulated the results, I think, to all members and you've seen the results and the results, we think, are pretty clear and pretty stark. The pattern seems to be a genuinely felt and a very deeply felt sentiment that tuition is too high and the effects of that high tuition is it is having an extremely negative impact on students in Nova Scotia.

What we seem to have found, I think, both in the survey itself and in the pattern of our observations as faculty, as staff and as students in the university, what we've seen is the pattern where people are making decisions not to go to university, people are making decisions once they're in university to leave.

When students are in university, the impact of the debt, the impact of having to work is having a negative effect on their experiences as students, and after they leave university, their working lives and other lives are truncated by the debt that they carry. They're not able to make - in our view, in our experience, what we see as people who work alongside students, as people often in the university community who serve students, people who work in the financial office, who work in student aid offices and so on, what we see is a pretty considerable impact of student debt on students.

It's a rising impact as a student travels through her or his university career, and it's an impact that happens when we talk to students about not only their own debts but the debts that their families are carrying when we talk to them about the lack of opportunities for the second and third children in their families and so on. These are things that are having a very real impact on them, that are reducing the contribution that they can make to Nova Scotia, and reducing their opportunities. We think that these are very real problems and very large ones, and ones that we look forward to the consultation in helping to solve.

Also, of course, I have to speak as a member of NSGEU. I'm a member of the Occupational Council that speaks on behalf of staff members at universities. NSGEU members are by no means the least well-paid Nova Scotians, and we recognize that. But even in our own experience, in our own families, these kinds of things are coming to the fore more and more. Even those of us who work in universities, who often have very good contracted deals with the universities where our students, our children or our members are able to have reduced tuition and so on, even in those cases, often what's happening is our members are finding it difficult to put their children through university. So it's a very real problem and one that we look forward to consulting with widely, and Danielle has our recommendations as well.

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: We just put together a few recommendations for the use of the money from Bill C-48. We believe that the province should continue to press for per student funding and not per capita funding. We believe the understanding under which this provision was developed, is that this money would be allocated on a per student basis. The allocation should be limited to students attending publicly-funded post-secondary institutions, the students of universities, colleges and community colleges.

The scenarios and studies on the allocation of these funds that the Honourable James Muir had mentioned in the debate of Bill No. 207, that were underway, should be made available to interested parties, so that we are able to give our recommendations on the various scenarios, so that they can best help students. Prior to any decision on tuition relief measures or a grants program, full consideration must be carried out with all interested parties, including students, faculty and staff, particularly with elected student leadership. And considering that these funds are to be allocated this year, this consultation should begin immediately.

That is our presentation, and we welcome any questions from the floor. Thank you for allowing us to be here today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Estabrooks.

MR. ESTABROOKS: Mr. Chairman, in deference to the learned gentlemen on either side of you, it's, of course, Danielle we want to talk to and we want to listen to. Danielle, as the father of a daughter who's a veteran tree planter in northern Ontario, and who makes a valuable contribution to helping with tuition, your recommendations on the money that's available - and I heard the minister's comments during the debate on Bill No. 207 - you want to be consulted, to be part of the decision-making process, but isn't it a problem of logistics here? How are we going to get, or how are they - we, hoping you're part of this process - going to get the word out there?

I firmly believe, and I think you do too, in needs-based grants and how important they are, but the logistics of what's happening, it's Summer and the Christmas wish list is in front of you folks, and you, in your responsible position as a student leader nationally. The logistics concern me greatly, how we communicate with students who are out there in various parts of the country, not necessarily planting trees in northern Ontario, but do you see that as a problem as we face September, because time flies when you're having fun, especially planting trees in northern Ontario? Could you comment on the logistical problems involved?

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: Yes, it definitely is a problem. Universities have already set their tuition fees for the upcoming year, students have put in loan applications already, before this announcement was made. It can be problematic, although there is no guarantee that we will see the money come in September either, as it is contingent on the federal surplus, which is usually announced later in the year. So it is a problem that this money might not reach students this September.

That's why I believe that the best way to help students is to immediately legislate a tuition fee freeze for the upcoming year, and then to make subsequent reductions in tuition fees, and to come up with a multi-year plan for tuition fee reductions, and to reduce the costs of education for students. Perhaps it's coming up with a plan that will stretch out for three or four years to make the best use of the money, as a lot of the money isn't going to reach students, I think, logistically in the 2005-06 year. It is a problem.

MR. ESTABROOKS: Thank you for that explanation. I knew many of the things of which you speak, but there's lots of politics in a tuition freeze, so let's avoid that. But let's look at the issue here that's of top priority. I come back to it because I've heard you speak about it before, but I think for members of the committee in particular and other people, for the record again, you do support, as one of the most important progressive ideas, needs-based grants. Can you update us on what the situation is in other provinces when it comes to needs-based grants as compared to Nova Scotia?

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: Well, as I've mentioned before, Nova Scotia is one of the only provinces without a needs-based grant system. I believe there's only one other province without one. And that's very problematic with the combination of having the highest tuition fees in the country and the inaccessibility to many low- and middle-income students. Recently the Millennium Scholarship Foundation has come out with a provincial needs-based grants program that will be targeting low-income students in Nova Scotia for the 2005-06 year, which is a positive step.

Unfortunately, the program is a very short-lived program, it's only four years. A problem that we see again in this two-year funding is that this isn't a stable source of funding, and there is no guarantee that these funds will be available after the two-year mandate is up, which is very problematic for students to rely on those funds and to start a

needs-based grants program when possibly the funds won't be there to continue that program after two years. I believe that if the will of the province is to have a needs-based grants program that we need a guarantee from the government that this grant will be continued once this federal money runs out in two years.

[9:30 a.m.]

MR. ESTABROOKS: First of all, my compliments on a very thorough, important study. It has proven conclusively what we've all thought as educators - when I had a real job and a real career - that if you lived in rural Nova Scotia or if daddy wasn't whoever or let's get into the financial background here, you are up against it right from the get-go to get into what is the greatest thing, you can never take - I used to say to the high school graduates, later on in your life they can take your house, they can take your car, they can take your wife but they can't take your education.

I want to go to the issue that's of most consequence to you as a student leader, Danielle. You weren't part of the process before. Student leaders across this province were left out of the loop completely. We heard the deputy minister say, in this very room, that's not going to happen again. Have you heard from anyone at the department? Have you heard from anybody, including Mr. Muir or Mr. Cochrane in particular, what your role is going to be this time?

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: No, we've heard nothing. Just on the note of the lack of consultation on the memorandum of understanding, we have been part of no follow-up on the memorandum of understanding. We have not heard a word of any of the committees that are meant to review the memorandum nor have we been approached by the Department of Education and I believe I can speak for all of us at the table that faculty, staff and students have not been contacted about the spending of Bill C-48 by the Department of Education.

MR. ESTABROOKS: That's disappointing and it's something, I guess, as members of the Opposition, we are going to have to put the minister's feet to the fire in July and see what happens. I guess the what if that comes out of this, Danielle, what if you are not consulted and a decision is suddenly announced on September 8^th, this is how we are doing it?

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: Well, I think worst-case scenario, the government will come out with a program that won't best benefit students. That's why we wish to be included. We know the plight of students quite well. We either work closely on a daily basis or are students, and I believe know the issues better than anyone of where this money should go and how it will best help students, how to get the word out to students that this money is available and how it is going to make the greatest impact. I think that the worst-case scenario is that the government does come out with a plan that's not going to help students and that students will continue to pay the highest tuition fees in the country, that we'll continue to see

low- and middle-income students shut out and if that happens, I believe that we will make our voices heard and that we will, once again, let the government know that this is unacceptable and that students, faculty and staff won't stand for it again.

MR. ESTABROOKS: Okay, that's enough for me at this stage, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Whalen.

MS. DIANA WHALEN: Good morning and thank you for being here again. We've met Danielle before but it's good to see all of you. Again, similar to Mr. Estabrooks, I have a daughter starting university next year so it has just begun to become a reality in our lives as well. I appreciate what you are saying, regardless of income, it's a lot of money for a university education and particularly if the students go away to school, so it is hitting home.

I've also attended recent graduations and see that the vast majority of students crossing the stage are saying they are heading to university, a lesser amount from Halifax West school where I was at most recently, a few going to colleges too, of course. It was interesting that very few did not indicate some sort of further education. That's just not a valid survey but a poll of how things look. I think we value education in this province and our young people do as well, and we realize that there is a lot of benefit to our future if you do pursue an education.

What I wanted to ask you about a little bit was a couple of things about how your message gets out and one of the things would be the fact that there are two student organizations and I know we've talked about that in other meetings but in order to bring forward, on a public policy level, the idea about tuition freezes or the needs-based grants, we read a lot of petitions, we had thousands of signatures that you had gathered on needs-based grants in the Legislature and I realize that what you are saying and what the other student group says for Nova Scotia is similar. So you really are, obviously, representing the same constituency and the students feel the same way, so how can you bring your voices together?

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: There are two student organizations and there is for a reason because we differ on many opinions, grants not being one of them, and the fact that tuition fees are too high and something needs to be done about that is another one that we have in common. With all due respect, there are three of you and there are only two of us and we find the trouble to contact all three political Parties to bring forward our public post-secondary policies and we believe that it's not so difficult for the government to offer us this same consideration.

MS. WHALEN: In terms of the results of your survey and the work that you've been doing, have you had meetings with the other group just so that you could even have joint meetings with government?

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: Oh definitely, yes.

MS. WHALEN: I think that gives us some confidence, too, that you initiate discussion among yourselves and then certainly government can come to two groups, I don't mean to say they couldn't, but it's nice if you come forward, too, on issues where you are united and say that you would like to see that done.

I would like to get a little information, if I could, on this Bill C-48 which I know has gone through. That was contingent on a certain number of things. Do you think we can count on that money? I heard you suggesting earlier that we should perhaps freeze tuition right now as one of the recommendations, expecting that money to come in and it would be there to take the pressure off government. What do you think about the certainty of it coming or what are the conditions that exist? Do we know?

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: It is contingent on, I believe, the budget surplus. I believe that the federal government is counting on a $3 billion budget surplus and historically we have known that the government well underestimates how much of a surplus it will carry over for the upcoming year. We believe that they will carry over an adequate amount. I think the money will come, it's just a matter of when that budget surplus is announced and when that will reach students.

MS. WHALEN: I see, so a high level of certainty, given the past budget surpluses of the government.

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: Given the past number of surpluses that have reached $9 billion in anticipation. Consistently for the past, I believe, decade, we have had huge surpluses by the federal government and they have consistently been severely underestimated, so I would say with great certainty that we will have that money.

MS. WHALEN: Tell me, in your relationship with the Department of Education, are there any regularly scheduled meetings? Would you meet with them once or twice a year to talk about issues?

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: Generally, we meet about twice a year. We actually just came out of a meeting with them last week about this grants program that's coming, the Millennium Scholarship Foundation. Yes, we do meet with them.

MS. WHALEN: The reason I ask that is because you were saying there has been no follow-up on the MOU or where that is headed and I wondered if that would be part of your discussions when you had regular meetings with them.

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: Oh, most definitely. We anticipate a meeting coming up. We normally have a meeting early in September, but we are hoping with negotiations underway about the spending of Bill C-48 that we will be included before September, because we believe that there is a lot of work to do and that work should be done as soon as possible. So we would take any opportunity to spend a beautiful Summer day with the Department of Education.

MS. WHALEN: You take your job seriously, then. That's good.

MR. ESTABROOKS: You don't mean that.

MS. WHALEN: That's right. They are in short supply. You know that, right?

On the issue of under-represented groups, you mentioned the young people coming from rural Nova Scotia and certainly we talk about lower income and your survey indicates, and so did the MPHEC study that was done not too long ago, that they were under-represented in the university population, but there are a few other factors. One study I had read referred to poor information about the costs and benefits of post-secondary education for lower income families. Could you perhaps talk to that a little bit because that's another level of complexity, I guess, in the whole scenario.

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: Would that be The Price of Knowledge that you are referring to by the Millennium Scholarship Foundation?

MS. WHALEN: I don't have it referenced properly. Sorry.

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: That's no problem. I think that lack of information can be a problem. I believe that more information is always helpful, that more high school guidance counsellors would be of great benefit to all high school students. But I think when it comes down to it, financial reasons have consistently been the number one reason for not attending post-secondary education.

Although information is a very important thing, information about bursaries and grants available - as few and far between as they are - would be great and useful to some high school students. It is now that this province doesn't have a needs-based grants program that there are very few bursaries available that target low- and middle-income students hoping to pursue a post-secondary education. No matter how much you get information about a Porsche and financing a Porsche, if you don't have that money, you're not going to buy it and I think that is consistently, in every study that I've ever looked at, been the number one financial reason.

I believe that the study you're referring to says that the cost outweighs the benefits and that was cited as a non-financial barrier to students. But I think we can all infer that if we believe that something is too expensive for what it's going to give us, that's obviously a financial barrier. As I said, information plays an important role but finances consistently play the most important.

MS. WHALEN: I was thinking about whether or not they understood the benefits at the end of the day, or whether or not the system of accessing, even our student loans and so on, might be so complex that some students just aren't prepared to enter in a field that is almost inaccessible at how to get there and how to do it, so there may be a comment on the complexity of what is available and as you say, there are student loan offices at every university and they're dealing with trying to explain it to students and make it possible that people are not missing out on things that they're entitled to. Is that an issue too, the complexity?

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: Definitely. For example, the Debt Reduction Program for university graduates that was introduced in 2003, was worth $5.1 million and aims to reduce debt loads for graduating students of up to 40 per cent. There were 6,000 students deemed eligible for that debt reduction in 2003-04 and because of the complexities of it, the strict qualifications for accessing that program, just over 1,000 students received debt reduction. In a $5.1 million program, in the first year, a mere $300,000 was paid out and not only is that due to lack of information or lack of knowledge about the program, but the strict qualifications that are involved, the short window of opportunity students have to apply for the program, the fact that there are up to four application processes to receive the full benefit of the program, that students just aren't able to do it.

MS. WHALEN: It sounds daunting, I have to say. Is there more time in our 10 minutes?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Actually, you're just about completed. There's lots of time left, so we can come back.

MS. WHALEN: Yes, we'll come back, I'm fine with that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hines.

MR. HINES: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for coming in this morning. First of all, I was reading through some information I have here in front of me that the Canadian Federation of Students is not the only student body lobbying governments and working towards what I would hope would be a common goal. The Canadian Alliance of Student Associations is also involved. Are you on an even keel with them? Do you have the same desires, the same wishes and if so, why would there be two groups?

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: As I said before, we do work together quite closely on issues that we do agree on but there are two groups, just as there are three political Parties, because our constituents have different priorities. We feel that we can best represent our constituents in different ways and I wouldn't want to speak for another group, but I believe that's why. We do agree on a number of issues and when we are able to agree on issues such as tuition fees, the needs of grants, the growing inequalities and access of education, then we do work together as closely as possible.

MR. HINES: One of the things I noticed here is the fact that we seem to have an imbalance - and you have made that request - for student funding. I think that's very important and I'd like to have a little bit of background on how you have approached the federal government regarding that issue and having the federal government correct that may be wrong regarding that situation. Do you have access to the federal government or is it similar to you accessing the provincial government, you do it through committees and so on? Do you have a dialogue forum that you can regularly report to and get information back from the federal government?

[9:45 a.m.]

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: Yes we do. We are a national and provincial lobbying association, so we do have dialogue with both the provincial and federal governments. In the package we had sent out in advance, there is a bill for a Canadian dedicated post-secondary educated transfer, the Canada Education Act, I believe, that the Canadian Association of University Teachers had suggested and that the Canadian Federation of Students agrees with. That is one of the tactics we have used, to actually formulate a bill to put forward to the federal government some time ago. That would see a dedicated transfer based on per student funding.

We have met with Members of Parliament a number of times to bring this forward and Members of Parliament in Nova Scotia do agree. However, I think we would see some tension with Members of Parliament from Alberta, who would actually lose funding if it was given out on a per student basis. It is a very complicated situation in that some provinces benefit from per capita funding such as Ontario and Alberta, and some provinces would benefit on per student funding such as Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Both groups feel very strongly that it should change or that it should not.

We've also requested on two occasions to meet with Premier Hamm to discuss this, on how we as a province can bring this forward. We have twice requested a meeting with the Council of Atlantic Premiers and have been turned down as well. Although Premier Hamm said that this is a priority for him, we have not been able to talk to him about how we can best work with the government to bring these changes forward.

MR. HINES: Certainly the provincial government has been lobbying the federal government to correct some of those inequities that are in the funding formula. In that sense, I guess in funding for universities it involves both revenue and expenditures, and federal-provincial funding. We've discussed the federal-provincial funding side of it but it seems as though, when you want information from budgeting within the universities, it's not easy to get, it's not always forthcoming. Do you think that it's time there was an internal review and that they perhaps look at their funding formula and changing their funding formula so that more money goes into the classroom?

MR. DAVIS: Well, yes. The MPHEC actually did a cost study some years ago and it was supposed to be redone periodically - it hasn't been. It's sort of like, we did a funding formula in Nova Scotia, it was supposed to be redone every three years, it never has been. Basically, these initiatives happen and then everyone seems to want to forget them, so something that was supposed to keep up with what the change is, the university costing study, for example, that the MPHEC was doing would have put all university budgets under the same categories so inter-university comparison could be done instantly, just by looking at the budget lines.

They did a pilot. They worked out some of the bugs. They decided they didn't have the money to do it, it was gone and as I say, the same with funding formula. It was done once, they didn't feel they had the staff or the money to do the triennial renewal which they had promised, so they didn't do it and everything gets completely out of whack.

University budgets are very hard to follow because each university has its own budgeting system. I'm told by my colleagues at Acadia that the entire computing system at Acadia is listed under library. So what is the cost of non-academic computing? The university doesn't know. Basically, it's similar at other universities, they each have their own

system, it's very hard to compare. They can't do good evaluation of individual units, is the unit efficient or not efficient, because they have no comparison because every other university has divided its budget in a different way. So I agree it needs to be done, the only question is who is going to do it.

MR. HINES: I think it's fine to draw parallels between what's happening with the university spending and ongoing studies that could improve the situation. Wouldn't you suggest that, as President of the Association of Nova Scotia University Teachers, you would be one of the better positions because you're dealing directly with the universities to start that fix?

MR. DAVIS: We tried. Actually the MPHEC is in a much better position than we are. We represent faculty unions. Needless to say, universities aren't overly happy about giving us full access to their budgets, quite the contrary. The Canadian Association of University Business Officers, CAUBO, does put out some comparative information. We've not found

it totally useful, that is it's not adequate, but they do put it out and they put it out every year. So that is always there.

MR. HINES: Do you have a percentage breakdown as to what portion of the funding would go, in fact, to programs within the classroom?

MR. DAVIS: It's very difficult to say, because if you look at various - well, okay, what do you even call a classroom? My university recently set up a writing centre for students whose writing skills are not adequate. Is that a classroom, or isn't it? It is a student service, it's academic in a sense, because, after all, being able to write - now, if it were done as it was earlier in the same university by members of the English Department, then obviously it's a classroom expense. Now, being done in this way, which is a way to organize peer help with writing skills, does that cease to be a classroom expense because it's not being done by a member of the English Department? Well, it's hard.

Research expenses and other expenses, again, they overlap, they mingle. If you have a Commerce faculty, if you have people working in business development, is it research, is it not, is it a service? A lot of these categories are very hard to divide. What we need, actually, is not so much an answer to a specific question like that as a set of categories that's uniform. Then we can just start to use those rather than asking specific questions. Once we have some categories, then we can have a conversation where we can all understand what each of us is saying, but without a set of categories it's going to be quite difficult.

MR. HINES: Certainly, there are some grey areas as to what would be defined as part of the education process, that's for sure, but I think anything that contributes to the well-being of the student, in terms of going out into the world and fending for themselves, would be considered education from my direction. How do you feel regarding the funding? Do you feel that some changes need to be made regarding the budgeting at the university level? Have you looked at that in-depth?

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: The budgeting at the university levels, in terms of what is being spent on the students in the classroom as opposed to other expenses?

MR. HINES: Yes.

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: Yes, I've sat on the NSCAD Board of Governors for two years, so I have had quite a bit of experience with university budgets in that respect. What I have found is a very troubling pattern in that more and more of university budgets have been spent on recruitment of international students to make up for the lack of government funding, as you can take one university student and pay for two domestic students, essentially, because they often pay double, sometimes triple the fees. We see a lot of money being spent in areas of advancement, areas having to do with private fundraising, again to make up for the lack of government funding. I've seen huge capital campaigns being

drawn up in the last few years as the funding formulas have not changed, and expenses at universities have gone through the roof.

There has been a lack of regard for the need of new infrastructure and infrastructure renewal in government funding. The universities have had to make up for that shortfall by going after private donations. We see more and more buildings, classrooms being built by Sobeys, by Alliance Atlantis, things like that, because the universities need new spaces and there's just not adequate flow for that. So there is more and more money being spent on private fundraising, and less servicing students.

MR. HINES: You sound as though - and I may be wrong - you maybe don't like the idea of private sector involvement in funding education. Are you telling me that?

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: Oh, most definitely. We are supposedly publicly-funded university and college systems, although if you look at the formula, the government actually provides less funding than students. So the majority of the money coming into universities is private, it's coming from students and not from the public source that it's supposed to. And when we see private sector money coming in to build buildings or to fund research, we're always seeing strings attached. We don't see lots of money coming in for art history programs, we see money coming in for business programs, for MBA programs, for commerce.

We see less money being spent on the arts and more money spent on what can be commercialized easily and what will bring research money in for the institution, what will bring big names in for the institutions and get the institutions more private money. So that's the big problem with private sector money. Honestly, it also lets the government off the hook. When the universities are relying more and more heavily on private funding, that's less and less money that should be and is not coming from government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Estabrooks, do you have any further questions?

MR. ESTABROOKS: Yes, I do. We just go around one at a time now, do we, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we'll take the Liberal Party next. Mr. Glavine, I think, is on next.

MR. ESTABROOKS: Excellent comment, Danielle, on those designated dollars, particularly when you look at research projects and the fact, of course, of where they're ending up, in engineering, and let's call it like it is, arts and the study of literature, well it has to be dollars in, dollars out.

Mr. Davis, I'd like to turn to something that concerns me about the study. It's a great study, but the demographic based upon regions and where we live, and I understand we can't break it down specifically, but someone who lives in Halifax - I don't live in Halifax, okay, I live in Upper Tantallon, I have no Metro Transit, my daughter has no way to get in and out, I live in rural Nova Scotia, whether I live in Hacketts Cove or Hatchet Lake. The same thing is true in Cape Breton, when we see the breakdown of whether someone lives within the CBRM - after amalgamation, but we won't go down that road - as opposed to whether they live in Inverness, as opposed to Sydney.

I'd like to draw attention to the fact - and you mentioned it before and I want to emphasize this again - the huge disadvantage that rural kids are at. It's a stunning challenge. It's absolutely stunning.

MR. DAVIS: It is.

MR. ESTABROOKS: I think it has to be emphasized with the fact that when we say a student is at a real advantage, a high school graduate, and I, along with my friend here, the member for Halifax Clayton Park, had the opportunity to attend some high school graduations, and you see their plans and where they're going, Saint Mary's or Mount Saint Vincent, and of course then they have to travel all the way to Acadia - oh my goodness, what a trip - or heaven forbid all the way to Sackville, New Brunswick, but that's out of the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: St. F.X. is not a bad drive.

[10:00 a.m.]

MR. ESTABROOKS: No. St. F.X. is not a bad drive, but the roads are getting better, I'll tell you. I want to go back to the fact that this is something that's of crucial importance because of a number of friends I was visiting down your way, incidentally, who were school teachers and they spoke quite well of you, amazingly. Then I'm looking at the fact that rural guidance counsellors - and it's the wrong term to use rural Nova Scotia. I'm sure someone who lives in Truro doesn't consider themselves living in rural Nova Scotia, they live in Truro, and there's an advantage to going to AC.

MR. DAVIS: In Truro they have the Agricultural College right there and it has a one-year program for them if they want to take it and that one year is then recognized by Saint Mary's or Dalhousie. But you take a kid who is in Kentville, too bad. Basically, there are ways of dealing with it. Money, of course, is important because they have to live away from home and that really increases their expenses. And we're talking about transferring credit, that's in Clause 19, if they could get their first year of university at their local community college and then transfer, this would make it at least easy for those interested to try it out at

a reasonable rate and then if they do decide they've made the right choice, they can start incurring the expenses instead of incurring it right from day one.

Money is not the only answer, there are a number of answers. It's just that unless we sit down - set up a committee, have representation from the rural areas, have representation from the universities and community colleges - and try to figure something out, that will never change. You can't change it by putting the university presidents around a boardroom table in Halifax, they're not going to do anything, if they understand the problem. Barring asking for a new subsidized dormitory, you're not going to get much useful information out of university presidents. You really have to talk to a wider group of people, especially the people who are suffering the problem, the rural students and their parents. They should be at the table, they know what their problems are.

MR. ESTABROOKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Davis.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Glavine.

MR. LEO GLAVINE: Thank you, Mr. Clare, Danielle, and Mr. Davis, for coming in today. This is a very important topic to me, to our caucus and as the survey shows, Nova Scotians, certainly one that is very timely here.

I remember, as the Education Critic, in September 2004 sort of having that reaffirmation of what I had a very strong suspicion about, being a former educator and a senior high vice-principal and that was access. Going to university was now a dilemma for many students and I'll come back to that in just a second.

I attended the announcement by the Maritime Premiers on Higher Education Commission. I thought from that report, certainly the most disturbing idea which their work had now shown was that students of low economic means in Nova Scotia were now entering university at a lower rate, starting with tracking from 1999 to 2002. We know that was a period in which government policy, I think, impacted immensely and that was, of course, the removal of the Student Debt Reduction program in 1999 and was replaced, to some extent and some means, by the Millennium Scholarship program. But still, students were now going to university at that lower rate from poorer families.

We also have the study which you have done, which talked about the 40 per cent factor of knowing somebody. I would have to say that as a senior high vice-principal, the most disturbing conversations in my office were not so much about discipline and trying to motivate higher academic performance, but those around a very capable student from a poor family who had no plans of looking at university, simply because the cost of going to university was probably more than perhaps the very home they lived in. So this was not something that they could even imagine taking on. I remember during the course of my last year there, in 2003, having about five such conversations and certainly it is now a disturbing

reality as we know. So we have the highest tuition in the country, enormous burden of debt, 3.9 per cent cap is an illusion, really, of something being done.

Nova Scotia will still record either the first- or second-highest gains in tuition this year because of the freezes and because of the actual reductions in a province like Manitoba, so we're still not even on the radar of doing something substantial about this issue. We have, of course, the highest percentage of participation in the Student Loan Program and an exodus of well-educated students from the province.

Danielle, I do find one thing a bit troublesome. You have been a great voice, the Alliance has been a great voice for wanting to make a change, but had you been on campus in the 1970s, we protested; where are the students? Are they in a malaise about this and it has just become an accepted kind of thing? I'd like your view on that because I find this pretty upsetting that they're paying this kind of dollar now.

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: I don't think it's so much an acceptance of the situation, I think it's more of a situation of students being so beaten down that it's just not an option. Myself, I was a full-time student working three part-time jobs. If protesting wasn't part of my job, I wouldn't have time for it. I think that's what we're seeing now is students are so overworked. We see students working a 60-, 70-, or 80-hour week with full-time studies and sometimes full-time jobs on top of that. I think the fact of the matter is that students just don't have the time for extracurricular activities, be it sports teams, be it debating teams, or be it getting politically involved on their campus.

I think my colleagues can agree that we're seeing students falling asleep in their classrooms because they just came off the back shift. We're seeing students, myself, in my 15-minute break of my job, cramming for the exam tomorrow, that's just not an option for many students. We're seeing very low participation rates on extracurricular activities of all kinds on campuses because students, for the most part, are just too busy.

In the past we have protested and we've gotten huge numbers. Students are not taking this sitting down and on-the-street demonstrations are effective but definitely not the only means, as I'm sure you know from the, I think, 8,000 petitions that students served to the Legislature just a few months ago, another very effective means, I believe.

MR. GLAVINE: Thank you. Am I allowed more?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, you have another couple of minutes.

MR. GLAVINE: I thought we were doing one question, that's great.

MR. ESTABROOKS: You didn't burn any flags? Come on, tell us, Leo. (Laughter)

MR. GLAVINE: What about universities themselves and maybe, Mr. Davis, you can address this? They're obviously recognizing we have very capable young Nova Scotians, because of this dilemma, not entering university. Are the universities making some overtures? I know they have limited dollars for bursaries and so forth but are they recognizing the reality perhaps a bit more and working to counterattack? We're going to be a long time here in Nova Scotia, from the way I see things unfolding, before some parity with the rest of the country on tuition is gained.

MR. DAVIS: Each university has its own targets for enrolment; some look out of province, more and more they're looking internationally just for the money, some heavily target people within their area. I'm from Saint Mary's and traditionally, the students from Prince Andrew just got on the bus and came over.

Recently, however, Saint Mary's has focused on international recruitment and actually our number of local students has fallen off drastically. That isn't what the Mount is doing, that isn't what Acadia is doing, that isn't what X is doing. Each university does a different thing; however, I would say outreach, as far as putting courses on outside of the city, has gone significantly down compared to what it was in the 1970s and 1980s and even the early 1990s. It started collapsing about the middle of the 1990s, and there are fewer of those courses. So a person who wanted to live in a rural area and attend part-time, which, before, they could probably do to get courses assembled for a first year, that's much more difficult now. I don't think the universities are pushing. It's quite an expensive undertaking.

One of the problems we have, the money is down, tuition is the major source of income - well, if tuition is the major source of your income, a class of 200 on campus looks very good, and a class of 15 off-campus looks very bad. There are other cases, such as starting a Ph.D. program, where you don't make money but you get prestige. But as far as serving rural Nova Scotia or, what I have been interested in for years, serving school teachers who want to upgrade qualifications, reasons that you have to get out there, no prestige and no money. So the universities basically have incentives to avoid it.

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: If I could just follow up on that, university bursaries normally come from endowment funds, left by ex-graduates and old faculty and people who look fondly on a certain institution. What we see, when university bursaries rely on that, is that, for one, they're normally in the form of scholarship to grant money for prestigious students who have gotten journals published, straight As, and have time to volunteer at the local nursing home because they're not working down in the kitchen there trying to earn their tuition fees. Those with great resumés are usually those from higher incomes.

But, as well, it unfairly benefits certain programs, certain programs which have graduates and alumni who are earning lots of money, which, as we know, are normally not NSCAD students, are usually doctors, lawyers, things like that, but as well it unfairly benefits certain institutions in our province. King's College has been graduating students for over

100-some-odd years and therefore has a large base of alumni to reach off its endowment fund; however, Cape Breton University, has only been graduating students for, I believe, 40 years - maybe just slightly under 40 years - and therefore has a much smaller base of alumni to get those endowment funds.

So we see large endowment funds for large universities, benefiting certain programs more than others and normally benefiting those from middle- and higher-income rather than donating money to be given out on a needs-based system.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you to our guests for coming in this morning. I just had a couple of questions to begin with, relative to the survey that you carried out in February. Mr. Clare, you referenced it in your presentation. I'm wondering what cost was incurred by the sponsors of that survey?

MR. CLARE: About $15,000, I understand.

MR. TAYLOR: You surveyed some 800 Nova Scotians, I understand, and you have selected some highlights of that survey. I'm not questioning your findings, in fact I think since 1990, Nova Scotians have generally agreed that university tuition and cost, the debt burden, has been too high. But I'm a little bit perplexed, and I'm wondering how the question was posed, relative to Nova Scotians, at least 56 per cent agreeing that they would be willing to pay higher taxes to provide grants and scholarships. That would be to the neediest students? How was that question posed? Do you mind, just for my edification?

[10:15 a.m.]

MR. CLARE: As I understand, the question was put this way - it was a two-part question - first of all: "Do you think the provincial government should provide a grant to scholarship program based on financial need to help the neediest students afford college or university tuition, or don't think so?" So that was a yes/no question.

For those who answered yes, that is yes, the provincial government should provide a grant to scholarship program, the second part of the question was: "Would you be willing to pay increased taxes so that the provincial government could provide grants or scholarships to help the neediest students afford college or university?" I think the answer to that was 56 per cent, and a further 6 per cent said something like it depends.

MR. TAYLOR: Keeping in mind that we do have the second-highest per capita expenditure in post-secondary education, in Nova Scotia, and we're a net importer of students, that does create a problem, and that has been mentioned before, so I won't go there. Also, one of your findings that you have selected here is that more than half surveyed believed that students shouldn't have to go in debt more than $20,000 to complete a college or university education. What do our guests believe is a reasonable debt for students to incur

in order to receive their post-secondary education? How was that question posed? Was it multiple choice? Did you go $20,000, $30,000, $40,000?

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: It was an open-ended question. Respondents could say zero to $200,000, if they felt that was acceptable. They could say $10,980, if they felt that that was acceptable.

MR. TAYLOR: Generally, what do you feel? You're putting it on, you're asking that question, obviously the authors of the survey must have a figure in mind that is reasonable. Utopia, we know what that would be. But what do our guests believe is an appropriate number?

MR. CLARE: I suppose my answer to that would be what would be your Utopia, and not just because as a parent and as somebody who works alongside students all the time and as somebody who has worked very hard to try to make sure that my kids got through university with very minimal debt, but also because I think that what we see is the consequences of that student debt, which is students having to make decisions that they wouldn't make otherwise, students not being able to go on to graduate programs because of the debts they carry, students who are having to choose jobs they wouldn't necessarily want to choose coming out of university and so on, because they have to begin to start paying off the debt.

I think, speaking to the Human Resources Committee, as a human resources kind of consideration, having people who are 21, 22, 23 years of age with no debt, I think is not only the best choice but I think it's a pretty reasonable goal for us to be aiming at. I'd say no debt.

MR. TAYLOR: I've been told there's no such thing as Utopia, but it would be difficult and I think we'd all be very much appreciative if we could attain it, especially regarding this issue. I have two children who went through university, and it's a difficult challenge. There's no question about that.

I want to focus a little bit now on the private sector's involvement or investment in our public education system. Danielle, I note in your recommendations you have - I guess it's No. 2 - stated "That the allocation be limited to students attending publicly-funded post-secondary institutions." I'm wondering if, in fact, you are at all flexible on that recommendation because that's pretty matter of fact, there is no room there for compromise. I disagree with that, by the way. I'm wondering why you have put that recommendation, keeping in mind that we have the second highest per capita expenditure in post-secondary education as Nova Scotia taxpayers.

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: I think we should also keep in mind that we are among the lowest funders per student as well as at the bottom of the list on spending for post-secondary education as a proportion of our gross domestic product. So as our province gets richer, our students are getting poorer. I think it's something else to keep in mind. I think it's pretty simple. Public funding should go to public institutions. I think that the federation is not flexible on that. I don't think that we should be subsidizing private career colleges; institutions that are not publicly accountable should not be receiving public funding. I think that's the bottom line.

MR. TAYLOR: As I say, I do disagree because I believe that there is a place for the private sector and, having said that, I want to qualify that by saying that I believe all the stakeholders should have some input as to how the money is allocated and how the education program is delivered. When you are paying the freight, I think you should have a say as a private investor in education. I think until the federal government steps up to the plate, especially, we have to look at the private sector, to some degree but having said that, I don't believe that they should have necessarily all the say as to how or where or when the educational programs are being delivered.

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: Well, I don't think that the private sector should have any say in how public money is spent. The private sector has one thing in mind and that's themselves. They are not looking out for the best interests of students. They are not looking out for education programs that won't lead to the future CEO of their company. They are looking out for their stakeholders who are not the public, and public money should not go toward that and they should not have a say in how publicly-funded institutions, where that money goes. There should be three stakeholders who are the government, students, faculty and staff. I don't think the private sector has any place in our college or university system.

MR. TAYLOR: Well, while I disagree, I appreciate our guest's opinion, Mr. Chairman, and I will turn the floor back over to you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Colwell.

MR. COLWELL: I have just a few things and I may share my time with Mr. Glavine, if I have extra time here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is plenty of time.

MR. COLWELL: One thing that hasn't been addressed here is efficiency within universities. I come from a business background. From your view, not being university presidents, while we say your best efficiency will ever be, of course as they should do, whether they are or not, has there been any attention put to that that you are aware of, running the universities more efficiently so they can keep their costs down and thus keep the university tuitions down?

MR. DAVIS: There is attention to it but basically various things keep happening. The government often prescribes new positions that you have to fill, new forms to be filled out. Someone has to be hired to fill them out. So basically, the problem is with all the sort of new requirements, universities are moving a bit further away from just teaching. Again, students come with problems. In the old days, students with problems didn't get to university. Now you need the Atlantic Centre for Disabilities and so on. Every time something new comes up, there is a tendency for the bureaucracy in the university to expand a little but I would say almost all university administrations would say that it's reactive rather than proactive. They are not trying to do a lot of work that is not related to teaching and research but whenever they are required to, they do.

Now with respect to efficiency, unfortunately, the way in which they are getting more and more and more efficient is classes are getting bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger. If you are counting productivity, this is a huge increase in productivity, but those of us who are faculty members don't exactly believe that this increase in productivity is in the best interests of either ourselves or our students. Basically, a class of 200 students cannot be run the way a class of 20 can. The student cannot get the same attention in a class of 200 as they can in a class of 20 but with respect to increased productivity from larger classes, the universities are doing just wonderfully.

MR. COLWELL: Quite honestly, I don't know how you cope with 200 students. I can't image that, from a faculty standpoint, and those aren't really the efficiencies I'm talking about. The efficiencies I'm talking about are more along the way that the university operates. I think that is something government should review with the administration. What I really want to say about this, I have a great respect for the staff at the universities at all levels. I think they do a terrific job. They turn out a terrific student as we can see by all our students who leave the province to get prime jobs everywhere else, they have a terrific outcome from what's going on.

I'm just going to leave the efficiency thing because . . .

MR. DAVIS: If I could say one more thing . . .

MR. COLWELL: Yes, please.

MR. DAVIS: The universities indeed do things like co-operative purchasing and that sort of thing. They do try to reduce their costs for paper, reduce their costs for other supplies and so on. They do have a consortium. They have merged all their library catalogues, except for Acadia, for example, which is a great efficiency for a student or professor who wants a book. You can go to the same catalogue and if it's in the province, you know it's there and you know where it is and actually, I think you can get it in about two days as opposed to every university buying a copy of every book, this is a tremendous efficiency.

MR. COLWELL: That's good. That's the kind of stuff I like to hear and I know the universities work hard at it, I know they really do.

I think we are talking about two issues here. One thing is the high tuition, which I couldn't agree more, it's too high. It's very high. Or three issues, really. Tuition is really high and the other thing is our economy here doesn't provide the pay for the job that you do that's really important. I can use my own son as an example. If he was working in Ontario, Alberta, any place except the Maritimes, he would make three to four times as much as he's making today. He's actually being called on a regular basis by friends of his saying, look, we have a job for you, why don't you come stay at our place and you have a job before you come. It's that kind of thing. He had to wait a long time to get a good job here and he now has a good job but still, the income he gets would be, again, one-third probably of what he would get anywhere else.

So that's a problem we have in Nova Scotia and that's one reason we are losing a lot of our key people. I can tell you from being a business person who developed new products and worked in an international market, you have to have top-notch people to really produce those products and to design those products and work with them. I hired many graduates from TUNS at the time when I was in business and I was very pleased with all the students I did receive. Actually, they moved some products and we did the things that all Nova Scotia companies are supposed to do which very few do, and develop new products and export them all over the world.

I have a problem with Danielle's view on business not being involved in part of education because that is part of education. Part of the problem we have with education is business isn't involved enough. I say involved not in the day-to-day operation of classrooms because I believe the universities do an exceptionally good job but I believe they should be there to help to fund, they should be there to advise on what they are seeing in the industry and what industry requires from a graduate to make sure they can be competitive locally and internationally because businesses, at the end of the day, are the ones that have to employ people. They have to be competitive and they have to create the environment for a strong economy in the province, they really do.

I was on advisory committees on the community colleges for a long time and I can tell you, they need to do a lot of work in the community colleges, a lot of work. There are too many students and teachers deciding what programs are there, in the meantime I'm an employer and when a resumé comes from a certain school I throw it in the garbage because I know the student's no good, not because the students themselves aren't good, because the training they got wasn't worth hiring and that is a fact.

[10:30 a.m.]

Work with the instructors in the school and they say, look, we don't even have money to buy material to make parts so we can teach the students what they can do. I mean, it's ridiculous, it's absolutely ridiculous what's going on, even to the point that as employers, we went to the schools and said, we'll give you the material, make some parts for us and every business in the community would have an opportunity to have some parts made of whatever they want, materials supplied - oh no, we can't do that, we're not allowed to do that. There is a lack of co-operation there with industry and I think it's very important that that co-operation is there and they work together.

If you don't have people who can provide things and services that you need with very little retraining when you come out of school, the economy doesn't grow stronger. If the economy doesn't grow stronger the jobs aren't there with the high pay that's needed for the students when they get out to pay this massive debt load they have and to help our province move forward and get stronger and stronger. What are your views on that?

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: Just to clarify what I've said, I don't believe that the private sector has any right to be in a negotiation for this reduction in tuition fees. The private sector should not have a say in how much money should go to grants, how much money should go to reducing tuition fees, what kind of university should get which funding, they should not be involved with that. Not to say that in cases like apprenticeship training, students should be able to have the most up-to-date programs and be ready for the job market. I think that's a slightly different case in that students should be prepared and have the most up-to-date skills and we should know which industry needs how many students.

Being involved in the day-to-day business of colleges and universities, I stand by the fact that I think the private sector should stay out of that. But I do believe that it is a problem that our young people are leaving the province, definitely. We have a huge lack of skilled tradespeople, we have a huge lack of nurses, and doctors willing to stay in rural areas. I think the key is that you're not going to get somebody from Alberta or wherever to come to Nova Scotia to work as a doctor in Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, but if you have a student from Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, who is able to go and get a university degree and be lucky enough to go on to medical school, many of those students are going to want to go back home.

Many of those students want to stay in Nova Scotia, myself being one of them. The problem is that we're taking away that choice because of our high tuition fees, because we have no real system of non-repayable student financial assistance that's actually worth anything to students and we just don't have the economy built up for that. We have students coming out with $40,000 in debts and are then paid amongst the lowest wages in the country, and that coupling results in many educated students leaving the province. I think that the number one thing we can do for that is to not give them the huge debts that are going to force them to leave in the first place.

When you have a 23-year-old with a $40,000 debt, they're not able to buy a home and settle down, they're not able to get a car, they're not able to be an active member of the economy because they're so pressed to pay off those debts, and I think that is the biggest problem. I think the only solution is to take away that up-front barrier that prevents them from participating in the economy, that being the mass of student debt loads that we see students graduating with an average of $25,000 and shocking numbers in how many students are borrowing $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 for an undergraduate degree.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, time is up. Mr. Estabrooks.

MR. ESTABROOKS: I want to return to a fact that I think might be lost on some members of the committee present and that's the interrupted student. No longer do young men and women leave bright-eyed and bushy-tailed out of high school and four years later have a degree. There are those interrupted students who are now in a situation where they, for other reasons, take a sabbatical, if I can put it that way. They finish that first year, you see them leave high school, they have this bursary or that bursary, perhaps an entrance scholarship of whatever amount. A $500 entrance scholarship from a university - it depends on the program you're in but knowing the situation, we can talk about it from NSCAD's point of view - that might be two textbooks in some situations, unbelievable what that cost is.

I see here in Question 6a, it was something that I had mentioned earlier and I know we've talked about, the students who drop out with the intention of going back. They get jittery with the fact that they've put in eight months of schooling, they've never been in debt before, their parents can't help them, they're living away from home and saying to themselves, I'm going to step away now for a year, I'm going to interrupt my so-called career as a student and I'm going to try to get a full-time job. Do we have any statistics on that particular problem?

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: Unfortunately, we don't right now, it's one of the suggestions we made to the MPHEC, that they look into how students are working, how many hours if they interrupt their studies. Unfortunately, we don't have anything statistically, but anecdotally we see many, many students taking seven to eight years to graduate because they're continuing on part-time.

As a part-time student, the complications of getting a student loan are even greater and that's a big problem for those who are even lucky enough to be able to go to school part- time for a number of years. We do see a number of students dropping out after their first or second year, getting a full-time job and then just realizing that they can't afford to take on another $20,000 worth of debt for a bachelor's degree that won't guarantee them a job in their field. While they have this full-time job, they're going to hang onto it and it's very easy once somebody removes themselves from the education system not to return, you see that a lot.

MR. ESTABROOKS: Women as compared to men, the fact, of course, is that young female students are really suffering the consequences of this as compared to their male counterparts, from the numbers that you have presented. Any particular reason you see for that, Danielle?

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: There are a number of issues facing women in the education system, a number of inequalities. We see less women in certain fields pertaining to medicine and science and that can be a huge pressure for some women. We also see women who are still only earning 70 per cent to 80 per cent of their male counterparts upon graduation, so a bachelor's degree is not going to get them the salary that it will for their male counterparts. A number of women have children who are dependent on them and they have to earn an income to provide for their families. That is a huge barrier to women.

If you look at the issue of women on social assistance, who have dependants and want to get themselves out of that low-income bracket, and get an education to provide for their families, get themselves a better job, are unable to get a Canada Student Loan to help them out with that, they're denied a university education because they're on social assistance. They're not able to access both funds to provide for their family while attending university and getting themselves out of that low-income bracket. That's a huge barrier to women who are trying to better themselves and provide for their families.

MR. ESTABROOKS: Indeed. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Taylor.

MR. TAYLOR: I'm kind of hearing with regard to the private sector or at least receiving mixed signals, I just want to point out that Dexter Construction, for example, has an excellent two-year apprenticeship program and while our guests seem to acknowledge that there is a profound shortage of skilled labourers in the Province of Nova Scotia, because of Dexter Construction, many Nova Scotians are able to apply and be approved in part of a heavy-duty equipment program, for example, where the tuition is $8,000.

If you're placed and work with Dexter, in the first year of your employment or re-employment, so to speak, you receive half your tuition back, and in the second year you get the rest back. As well as the heavy-duty equipment program, they also have a junior foreman program, where some people are perhaps more inclined to want to provide leadership in a supervisory capacity, and they also have that program.

I certainly believe in the private sector's involvement. Again, I qualify that by saying that all stakeholders should have an input, the same as the recommendation regarding any tuition or interest relief, of course the student leadership should be part of those types of discussions before any program is unveiled and I'll work towards that end.

MR. GLAVINE: Mr. Chairman, this September when we return to the House, I'm probably going to ask the same question that I started with in 2003, and that's about the high tuition rates in Nova Scotia. I think part of the reason the multi-year funding, which again was a big push from our caucus, wasn't as successful was because students were denied access to the negotiations. I did see students register, not just disappointment but protest, of course, that day when the announcement was made, and you were neglected for being part of it until beyond the eleventh hour.

So there is an opportunity with this new funding which, hopefully, will be coming as part of the agreement made to get the budget through. Have student groups made any overtures to the deputy minister to let him know that you want to be a participant in this? I ask that because if you aren't proactive here, you could easily be sidestepped once again. I probably bring that as kind of a little bit of a word of caution to you, but perhaps you've already made some indications that in fact you do want to be there, need to be there, as part of the talks that need to go forward. I was just wondering if you had any comment or anything at this stage.

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: To be perfectly honest, we haven't been successful in reaching the minister or the deputy minister. I think, considering that this announcement was just two business days ago, we have not had that opportunity. We definitely will be proactive on that, and we definitely will not take no for an answer.

MR. GLAVINE: I'm pleased to hear that.

MR. CLARE: If I could just follow up, I think that as an important first step in that process of consultation we understand that scenarios have been developed for how this money is going to be allocated. I think the minister mentioned that during the debate on Bill No. 207. Those scenarios, some ideas on how that money - that process probably shouldn't have even gotten as far as what were thought to be kind of closed-end scenarios without talking to student representatives. Now that it's gotten that far, it's really important, I think, that what work has been done on this be shared right away so that we can begin consultation from a perspective of all knowing what assumptions are on the table.

MS. WHALEN: I'd really like to just continue on in discussing that a little bit. I would like to propose to the committee that in light of the fact that Bill C-48 has now been passed and that we can expect to have, as Danielle said in her presentation, $34.5 million, perhaps - that would appear to be Nova Scotia's share - beginning this year, that this committee should support the consultation between all parties to see that that gets started.

I wanted to make a motion, if I could, Mr. Chairman, and I think I'd word it this way, if you're ready for this: that the Human Resources Committee call on the Minister of Education to commence discussions with students, faculty, university administration representatives to develop a plan for the best allocation of these new funds from Bill C-48

to ensure they address student needs. That would be just to start consultation. Does that sound reasonable? I'd like to propose that we move that.

[10:45 a.m.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any discussion on that motion?

MR. ESTABROOKS: I'm planning to support the motion, but I think you should make, if you wouldn't mind, Diana, special reference to include universities/community colleges.

MS. WHALEN: Yes, it's a good idea. So representatives from students, faculty, university administration and Nova Scotia Community College.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any further discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

Are there any further questions from any of the members? Mr. Colwell.

MR. COLWELL: Just one comment to Danielle, really, I was wondering if you made any efforts with your student organizations to contact some of the businesses that work or try to work with the universities? I know you don't agree with some of the ways they do it, and I don't disagree with some of your views. I think you might have a really strong ally in industry, because industry really wants good quality students because their survival and the province's economy depends on very skilled people such as yourself going out and making our economy better and making businesses stronger.

I think if you were to meet with some business people in this community, you'd be surprised at the kind of response you would get. They're there to help, they want to see the economy grow, and they don't give money to universities because it's a neat thing to do, they give it because they want good students from the universities. They know what they need in the students, they know what they need to see when the students come out, and I think that the universities turn out good students, don't get me wrong, very good students, they do an excellent job, but they may also be able to help you in other ways, especially if you can describe to them what your plight is, what your concerns are, which you very clearly indicated, and I share some of your concerns with them.

But if you were to approach them, I think your response from them would be quite astonishing. They may, indeed, change some of the ways they provide funding to the universities, based on the things that they do, and indeed help the outcome, which we all want to see, better students at a lower cost and better for the economy of Nova Scotia. So just

as a comment, if you'd like to let us help you coordinate some of that, we'd be very pleased to do that as well. Just hear their side of it, and let them hear your side, too. I think that's very important.

MS. WHALEN: I'd like to - since we have extra time, if the committee is all right with this - ask a little bit about the immigration and students working off-campus. I know that's a very important issue for you, you did touch on some of the points about introducing more international students. I found that very interesting, about them being outside the funding formula and therefore there's an added incentive for the universities to do that, because it's also, at this point in time, very topical in Nova Scotia, about our population, about the need to encourage immigration.

In the Rae report, which was a recent one done for post-secondary education in Ontario, they indicated there that with our own population, not at a replacement level and the number of graduates declining each year from high school, that we really need to look strongly at introducing more international students. In fact, the growth that they predicted there was many times - something like in the next 20 years, it was going to go up by many hundreds of per cent, the number of students who would be travelling internationally to study.

So it really is very important, as well, for the health of our universities, is it not? And I wondered if you could say anything about these students working off-campus? I know our province has not yet signed an agreement, I don't believe, and I think we're behind the eight ball there.

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: Yes, I think that international students are a great addition to any university campus. It provides a great diversity of culture and ideas. But the main thing is that we just have to watch out for why students are being recruited. Many students are just treated as cash cows for universities and are being heavily recruited because of that, not because of the ideas and the experience that they'll bring to the university. I think we also have to make sure that there are certain measures of support available for those students when they enter the campus.

As we've seen government funding being cut further and further, among the programs to be cut, are those that provide assistance for students, international student advisers, and aids and offices are being cut. We are finding many students entering the university, I'll take Cape Breton University for example, last year did strong recruitment in China. Those students were promised an education, a residence and got there and were told that there was actually no more room in the residence for them, that they would be housed in New Waterford. I don't know if you're familiar with New Waterford, but it might be a little unpleasant for somebody who had just immigrated from China, to enter such a small community. That is one thing we have to look out for.

I had been in contact with the Minister of Immigration's office, who has indicated that there is a memorandum of understanding that is being negotiated with university presidents. We have requested on a number of occasions that student representatives be a part of those consultations, to no avail so far but we're hoping that we will be part of those consultations as well.

MS. WHALEN: Could I just clarify then, what you were told was that it's the university presidents alone who are sitting at the table for those discussions?

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: Yes.

MS. WHALEN: Can I ask you, when you run to represent your student body as a student leader, are international students allowed to vote for you?

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: Most definitely, we represent many international students.

MS. WHALEN: So you represent them completely and democratically?

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: Yes. Actually, as part of our organization, we have a caucus of international students where they can share issues and bring them to light of domestic students, so it's very much an integral part of our organization.

MS. WHALEN: I think it might be appropriate, Mr. Chairman, if we do another motion which would be in support of these negotiations currently underway, that the student government leaders, again, be part of the negotiations on behalf of international students, for the students to be allowed to work off-campus. Those are the current negotiations that are going on between the government and, I guess, the federal government, and university presidents. I think the students should be at the table, they do legitimately represent the interests of those students and I personally have had calls from students who are very anxious to have the opportunity to work off-campus. Quite a number of other provinces have already passed their memorandums.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion on that motion?

MR. ESTABROOKS: If I may, Mr. Chairman, what is the motion?

MS. WHALEN: I haven't got it written down. The motion would be similar to the last motion but it would be asking that the student leaders be involved, immediately, in discussions on how Nova Scotia is going to allow international students to work off-campus. That should be done quickly and it should be done with some consultation with the university student leaders.

MR. TAYLOR: Just a question, where are the negotiations now? Has there been no consultation? When do they expect to reach a decision? Is there time for further involvement?

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: Students are hoping that we will see off-campus work be provided in the Fall. We had anticipated perhaps October, so I believe there is adequate time for involvement.

MS. WHALEN: Some provinces have already done their agreements with the federal government and students are now allowed to work off-campus. I think that if there's several months to go, it would make sense to have those student leaders who do represent the interests of the students who come from other countries be involved.

MR. TAYLOR: Similar to the last one.

MS. WHALEN: It's very much in the same vein to say, if we're suggesting that the university student leaders should be part of these discussions on other issues, why not on the international student issue as well. Let's try to suggest that it should be expedited, let's do it fast.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hines.

MR. HINES: Why don't you just add that to the first motion and include negotiations of international students?

MS. WHALEN: It is a separate topic and separate negotiations. One was the memorandum of understanding between the universities and the government, and this one would be the memorandum of understanding between the federal government and the province, so I think that they're separate, but they are parallel.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion on the motion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

MS. WHALEN: Well, thank you very much.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That pretty well concludes the time allotted for the Human Resources Committee today, so if our guests would like to take a moment or two for closing

comments, we will entertain that.

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: Just once again, thanks for allowing us to come and speak to you about this important issue, especially in light of Friday's events. We hope that these motions are followed through and we are involved in consultations about the spending of money in Bill C-48. We would just like to thank you for your time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On behalf of the Human Resources Committee, we thank you for coming in on a very important topic. I have to commend you for your diligence in meeting with every caucus I believe you've met with. So anyway, on behalf of our committee, thank you for coming in and sharing your concerns with us today.

So there is no further business, I guess. A motion to adjourn is in order.

MR. COLWELL: I so move.

MR. TAYLOR: Is the next meeting July 26^th?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The next meeting is July 26^th.

We are adjourned.

[The committee adjourned at 10:56 a.m.]