EN Guide against $ 1625 tuition fee hike

download EN Guide against $ 1625 tuition fee hike

of 58

Transcript of EN Guide against $ 1625 tuition fee hike

  • 8/4/2019 EN Guide against $ 1625 tuition fee hike

    1/58

    Fdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec

    Guide Against the $1,625 Hike inTuition Fees

    Media release

    Presented for the 151st meeting of the general Congress(CAO-15111)

    August 19-20-21, 2011

    In Montral

  • 8/4/2019 EN Guide against $ 1625 tuition fee hike

    2/58

  • 8/4/2019 EN Guide against $ 1625 tuition fee hike

    3/58

    Guide Against the $1,625 Hike in Tuition FeesFdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec - 2011

    ii

    Student member associations

    ADEESE -UQAM

    Association des tudiantes et destudiants de la Facult dessciences de lducation delUniversit du Qubec

    Montral

    AECSP

    Association des tudiants descycles suprieurs de

    Polytechnique

    AEENAP

    Association tudiante de lcolenationale dadministration

    publique

    AEP

    Association des tudiants dePolytechnique

    AEUCS

    Association des tudiants del'INRS Urbanisation Culture etSocit

    AGECALE

    Association gnrale destudiants et tudiantes duCampus de Lvis

    AGECAR

    Association gnrale destudiants du campus Rimouski

    AGEIAF

    Association gnrale tudiantede lInstitut Armand-Frappier

    AGEUQAT

    Association gnrale tudiantede lUniversit du Qubec en

    Abitibi-Tmiscamingue

  • 8/4/2019 EN Guide against $ 1625 tuition fee hike

    4/58

    Guide Against the $1,625 Hike in Tuition FeesFdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec - 2011

    iii

    AESG

    Association tudiante de lcoledes Sciences de la gestion de

    lUQAM

    CSU

    Concordia Student Union

    FA CUM

    Fdration des associationstudiantes du campus delUniversit de Montral

    FEUS

    Fdration tudiante delUniversit de Sherbrooke

    MAGE-UQAC

    Mouvement des associationsgnrales tudiantes de

    lUniversit du Qubec Chicoutimi

    PGSS

    Post-Graduate Students Societyof McGill University

  • 8/4/2019 EN Guide against $ 1625 tuition fee hike

    5/58

    Guide Against the $1,625 Hike in Tuition FeesFdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec - 2011

    iv

    List of acronyms

    SFA Student Financial Assistance

    CCAFE Comit consultatif sur laccessibilit financire aux tudes

    CMEC Council of Ministers of Education, Canada

    CNCS-FEUQ Conseil national des cycles suprieurs de la Fdration tudianteuniversitaire du Qubec

    CR PUQ Confrence des recteurs et des principaux des universits du Qubec

    CSE Conseil suprieur de lducation

    GERD Gross domestic expenditures on research and development

    FTE Full-time equivalents

    LFS Labour Force SurveyFADOQ Fdration de l' ge d'Or du Qubec

    CMSF Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation

    FEUQ Fdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec

    MIF Mandatory institutional fees

    EPF Established programs financing

    FQPPU Fdration qubcoise des professeures et professeurs duniversits

    HEC cole des Hautes tudes commerciales

    CPI Consumer Price Index

    ISQ Institut de la statistique du Qubec

    MELS Ministre de l ducation, du Loisir et du Sport

    MFQ Ministre des Finances du Qubec

    OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

    GDP Gross domestic product

    RESP Registered Education Savings Plan

    HRSDC Human Resources and Skills Development Canada

    CST Canada Social Transfer

    CHT Canada Health Transfer

  • 8/4/2019 EN Guide against $ 1625 tuition fee hike

    6/58

    Guide Against the $1,625 Hike in Tuition FeesFdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec - 2011

    v

    Table of contents

    STUDENTMEMBERASSOCIATIONS................................................................................................................II

    LISTOFACRONYMS............................................................................................................................................IV

    TABLEOFCONTENTS..........................................................................................................................................VLISTOFFIGURES................................................................................................................................................VII

    LISTOFTABLES.................................................................................................................................................VII

    1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................1

    2. SOCIOECONOMICCONTEXT......................................................................................................................42.1. THEAFTERMATHOFTHEECONOMICCRISIS .............................................................................................................42.2. KNOWLEDGEECONOMY ................................................................................................................................................52.3. THEBUDGETOFFAMILIES............................................................................................................................................7

    2.3.1. Theindebtednessoffamilies............................................................................................................................72.3.2. Familyexpenses.....................................................................................................................................................7

    2.3.3. Thesavingsoffamilies........................................................................................................................................8 3. POSTSECONDARYSTUDIES.....................................................................................................................11

    3.1. DEFINITIONOFACCESSIBILITY .................................................................................................................................11 3.1.1. Thecostsofstudieshaveaninfluenceonaccessibility.......................................................................11

    3.2. STUDENTBILL..............................................................................................................................................................13 3.3. STUDENTCONDITIONS ...............................................................................................................................................15

    3.3.1. Whoistheaveragestudent?..........................................................................................................................153.3.2. Thestudentbudget.............................................................................................................................................173.3.3. Studentindebtedness.........................................................................................................................................18

    4. ANALYSESOFBUDGETARYMEASURES..............................................................................................204.1. THEUNIVERSITYFINANCINGPLANOFTHEQUEBECGOVERNMENT..................................................................20

    4.1.1. Operatingexpenses............................................................................................................................................20 4.1.2. Afaircontribution..........................................................................................................................................20

    4.2. ANALYSISOFUNDER-FINANCING.............................................................................................................................22 4.3. THEFAMILYCONTRIBUTION .....................................................................................................................................25 4.4. THESTUDENTFINANCIALASSISTANCEPROGRAM ................................................................................................28

    4.4.1. Thecurrentsituation........................................................................................................................................28 4.4.2. Thereinvestmentof118millions.................................................................................................................284.4.1. Theincreaseofthespecialallowance........................................................................................................304.4.2. Transportationexpensesforpart-timestudentsintheregions.....................................................314.4.3. Summaryofthemeasuresonfinancialassistance...............................................................................31

    4.5. USEOFAMOUNTS........................................................................................................................................................33 4.6. IMPACTOFTHEHIKES ................................................................................................................................................35

    4.6.1. Perceptionofcosts..............................................................................................................................................354.6.2. Impactofindebtedness.....................................................................................................................................364.6.3. ImpactoftheBudgetmeasures....................................................................................................................36

    5. BENEFITSOFPOSTSECONDARYSTUDIES..........................................................................................385.1. UNIVERSITYGRADUATESAREFISCALLYANDSOCIALLYPROFITABLEFORTHESTATE ..................................38

    5.1.1. Socialprofitability..............................................................................................................................................38 5.1.2. Fiscalprofitability...............................................................................................................................................39

  • 8/4/2019 EN Guide against $ 1625 tuition fee hike

    7/58

    Guide Against the $1,625 Hike in Tuition FeesFdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec - 2011

    vi

    6. SPECIFICARGUMENTS..............................................................................................................................416.1. REGIONALUNIVERSITIES ...........................................................................................................................................41 6.2. INTERNATIONALSTUDENTSANDCANADIANNON-RESIDENTSOFQUEBEC.....................................................43

    7. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................................46

    8. BIBLIOGRAPHY...........................................................................................................................................47

  • 8/4/2019 EN Guide against $ 1625 tuition fee hike

    8/58

    Guide Against the $1,625 Hike in Tuition FeesFdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec - 2011

    vii

    List of figuresFIGURE1:THEGROWTHOFTHEPOPULATIONOF65YEARSANDMOREISACCELERATINGINQUEBEC

    WHEREASTHEDROPWILLAFFECT15TO64YEAROLDS............................................................................................4 FIGURE2:RATEOFVARIATIONOFJOBSINQUBECFROM1990TO2009ACCORDINGTOTHEHIGHEST

    LEVELOFEDUCATIONATTAINED(INPERCENTAGE)......................................................................................................6

    FIGURE3:PERCENTAGEOFSAVERSANDNON-SAVERSACCORDINGTOTHEINCOMEQUINTILEOFTHEIRHOUSEHOLDANDTHEHIGHESTLEVELOFEDUCATIONOFTHEPARENTSWITHCHILDRENUNDER18YEARS,2009...........................................................................................................................................................................................9

    FIGURE4:SAVINGSBEHAVIORFORRETIREMENTANDFORPOSTSECONDARYSTUDIESACCORDINGTOTHEINCOMEQUINTILEOFTHEHOUSEHOLD,2009.................................................................................................................10

    FIGURE5:PARTICIPATIONRATEINPOSTSECONDARYSTUDIESINCANADABYPROVINCE,BETWEEN1993AND2006.............................................................................................................................................................................................13

    FIGURE7:PROGRESSIONOFTHESTUDENTBILLFROM1968TO2016...........................................................................15 FIGURE8AMOUNTIN2016DOLLARSOFTOTALUNIVERSITYFEESFROM1968TO2016....................................22 FIGURE9:DISTRIBUTIONOFADDITIONALRESOURCESBETWEENTHEDIFFERENTACTORS............................34 FIGURE10:POPULATION,TAXREVENUESANDGOVERNMENTALTRANSFERSACCORDINGTOTHELEVEL

    OFEDUCATION..................................................................................................................................................................................39

    List of tables

    TABLE1:NUMBEROFJOBSINQUEBECBYLEVELOFEDUCATION(INTHOUSANDS)................................................5 TABLE2:PARTOFBUDGETFORTHEMAINCATEGORIESOFEXPENSESACCORDINGTOTHEINCOME

    QUINTILE,2009....................................................................................................................................................................................8TABLE3:SUMMARYOFTHESOCIOECONOMICCHARACTERISTICSOFSTUDENTS....................................................16 TABLE4:SUMMARYOFFINANCIALCHARACTERISTICSOFSTUDENTS...........................................................................18 TABLE5:DESCRIPTIONOFTHETRANSPORTATIONMODEUSEDMOSTFREQUENTLYINAUTUMN2009

    BASEDONTHEREGIONOFSTUDIES......................................................................................................................................19

    TABLE6LOW-INCOMECUTOFFOFSTATISTICSCANADA,BEFORETAX,2008.........................................................26 TABLE7:PERCENTAGEOFFAMILYINCOMEREPRESENTINGTHELIVINGEXPENSESOFASTUDENT............27 TABLE8:PARENTALCONTRIBUTIONCALCULATEDBYSTUDENTFINANCIALASSISTANCE,INPERCENTAGE

    OFSALARY...........................................................................................................................................................................................27 TABLE9:INCOMEANDEXPENSESPLANNEDBYSTUDENTFINANCIALASSISTANCE(INMILLIONSOF

    DOLLARS).............................................................................................................................................................................................29 TABLE10:INVESTMENTSOFTHEDIFFERENTPARTIESINTHESTUDENTFINANCIALASSISTANCE

    PROGRAM.............................................................................................................................................................................................30 TABLE11:EFFECTOFTHETUITIONFEEHIKEOF2007ONTHEFINANCINGOFUNIVERSITIES........................33 TABLE12:PORTRAITOFTHEADVANTAGESOFPOSTSECONDARYEDUCATIONFORINDIVIDUALSAND

    SOCIETY................................................................................................................................................................................................38 TABLE13:PRIVATERATEOFRETURNIN2005-2006(IN%)................................................................................................40 TABLE15:FEESREQUIREDFROMCANADIANNON-RESIDENTSOFQUEBEC................................................................43

    TABLE16:FEESREQUIREDFROMFOREIGNSTUDENTS..........................................................................................................44 TABLE17:ADDITIONALFEEPERMITTEDTOUNIVERSITIESANDTOTALOFALLFEES..........................................45

  • 8/4/2019 EN Guide against $ 1625 tuition fee hike

    9/58

    Guide Against the $1,625 Hike in Tuition FeesFdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec - 2011

    1

    1. IntroductionThe new tuition fee hike of $1,625 per year decreed by the Charest government hasstruck Quebec students hard financially: it is brutally tearing down their budgets. Overtime, the bill will attain $4,700 per year when we count mandatory institutional fees(MIF or ancillary fees). It will now cost nearly $14,000 for a 3-year bachelors and nearly$19,000 for a 4-year bachelors.

    Despite this prodigious rate shock, the government continues to deny that this hike willreduce accessibility, whereas many serious scholarly study shows the contrary. Itbrandishes the example of the rest of Canada to try to make us believe that higher feeswill not have an effect on attendance, but they knowingly omit to specify:

    - That in Ontario, in 2003, when the government increased tuition fees, it alsoeliminated the last year of high school, in such a way that there was a doublecohort that entered university. This allowed them to artificially maintain the

    obtainment rate of a university diploma;- That Quebec has historically trailed in filling university attendance and that

    thanks to the tuition fee freeze, the attendance rate in universities went from 3%of francophones in 19601 (7% for the entire province) to 27 % in 2004-2005.2 Andstill today, 1 student in 2 is first generation, which means that half the studentsdo not have familial antecedents that predisposes them toward a universitycurriculum;

    - That in the rest of Canada, there is no CEGEP and bachelors last 4 years andwhen we include CEGEPs in the comparisons, Quebec has a better access ratethan the Canadian average, despite the historical catching up it has had to do;

    - That this explains the high rate of attendance in Nova Scotia and its geographicalposition, which allows it to drain youth away from other maritime provinces thatdo not have access to a university program of their choice in proximity.

    Furthermore it is false to affirm that the increase in tuition fees improves the quality ofeducation, as was shown by a recent study cited in La Presse.3 In the rest of Canada, asin Quebec in the 1990s, the increase in fees has always been followed, some years later,by an equivalent reduction, or almost, of governmental investment in universities; whatis our guarantee that it will not be the case this time around?

    1 http://www.musee-mccord.qc.ca/scripts/explore.php?Lang=2&tableid=11&tablename=theme&elementid=107__true&contentlong consult le 4 aot 2011.2 FCBDM p. 63 et suivantes.3 Perreault, Mathieu. Montral au palmars du savoir , La Presse, 27 dcembre 2010.

  • 8/4/2019 EN Guide against $ 1625 tuition fee hike

    10/58

    Guide Against the $1,625 Hike in Tuition FeesFdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec - 2011

    2

    The Charest government justifies this increase on the measure of inflation calculated beginning in 1968, the year of the creation of the UQ network. Why go back so far?Because after this date, Quebec students have always paid less than what we pay todayto study in university. As an example, tuition fees were $547.00 when Jean Charestobtained his diploma, about $1,349 in 2011 dollars. This makes this tuition fee hike aserious attack on intergenerational equity.

    If Quebec has become what it has, it is because it invested in accessibility to universitystudies by freezing tuition fees. It was the best of our investments. It appears totallyinconsequential today to hear some of the individuals who benefited most from thefreeze pleading for a strong increase

    The increase in tuition fees of $1,625 per year will not pass! Students and their familieswill not give in and accept in any way that government excessively increases thefinancial burden that weighs on their shoulders, and that it at the same time restrainsaccessibility to studies by erecting new barriers to entrance into universities. With thisincrease, higher education will no longer be at the reach of a great number of youth

    from middle class families. The cost of studies will become too onerous.This announcement, made by the Charest government, illustrates its lack ofunderstanding of the problems many students face, of the economic challenges Quebectoday must meet as well as the demographic reality it confronts.

    In fact, we must point out that half of undergraduate students live with less than$12,200 per year, that on average they work more than 16 hours per week, in addition totheir full-time studies, that they massively indebt themselves to the government andfinancial institutions, namely $14,000 on average when leaving with a bachelors inhand, and, consequently, they do not have the necessary funds to absorb a new tuitionfee increase? This means that many will not be able to complete their study projects or

    pursue graduate studies.From the outset, at the economic level, all experts in that field know that 70% of the newjobs created require a postsecondary studies degree and that to remain competitive onthe international market, Quebec must rely on know-how and innovation and mustmaximally draw on the talent Quebec can offer.

    On the other hand, demographically, in the short-term we see the evolution of ashortage of a skilled workforce due to the fact that a greater proportion of people leavethe labor force compared to the number of employed people (Finances Qubec, 2011b).In order to overcome this problem, the government has no other choice than to promotethe training of the workforce. Education is thus to be prioritized to ensure the economic

    development of Quebec and its competitiveness at the national level.

    Ceasing to increase tuition fees thus constitutes a positive investment that will not onlyhelp students and their families, but all of Quebec as well. University doors must remainopen to all people who wish to learn. This is why we have to stop the hikes as of 2012and reduce the level of indebtedness of students.

    This hike is the worst attack on accessibility in twenty years. It jeopardizes the financial

  • 8/4/2019 EN Guide against $ 1625 tuition fee hike

    11/58

    Guide Against the $1,625 Hike in Tuition FeesFdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec - 2011

    3

    conditions of students, their families and, by extension, the population of Quebec. Thelamentations of the CRPUQ and the excessive demands of the rectors are a symptom ofa badly coordinated university network, badly supervised, that competes with itself byspending precious resources to capture the student population of its neighbors.

    In reaction to these facts, the Federation has no other choice but to show that the

    increase in tuition fees not only has consequences for students, but that this hike is also adisguised tax on the middle class. We have to show that this increase not only affectsstudents, but that it also contributes to raising the financial stress of their families whofind themselves facing an agonizing choice. This choice asks them to make an importantsacrifice: namely to sacrifice their retirement or again to sacrifice the ambitions of theirchildren by not contributing to their postsecondary studies. This is not a choice thatfamilies should have to make.

    This document is intended as a detailed argument. It first examines the currentsocioeconomic context and defines university accessibility. Furthermore, it includes theanalysis of the latest budgetary measures. The benefits of postsecondary studies and

    two specific arguments, one for regional universities and the other for internationalstudents, conclude this.

  • 8/4/2019 EN Guide against $ 1625 tuition fee hike

    12/58

    Guide Against the $1,625 Hike in Tuition FeesFdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec - 2011

    4

    2. Socioeconomic context2.1. The aftermath of the economic crisisIn 2008, the majority of industrialized countries felt the full force of a recession. This

    recession had significant consequences on family expenditures. Statistics Canada (2011)noted in 2009 the average expenditures of households decreased 0.3% in the country.This decrease was the first to happen in their Survey of Household Spending publishedsince 1997. Apart from taxes that represented 20.2% of the average budget ofhouseholds, housing represented 19.8%, transportation 13.7% and food 10.2%(Statistique Canada, 2010). Beyond the drop in family expenditures, variousobservations were made.

    Among these observations, the Organization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment (OCDE, 2010) noted that in countries that were affected earliest by therecession, individuals whose education was lowest encountered more difficulties finding andkeeping a job (p.13). The OECD also observed that various countries will be facingdemographic and cultural transformations of their job market and thus education willplay a preponderant role there.

    The government of Quebec noted that these changes will begin in 2013. (Figure 1) andthat a greater percentage of people will leave the labor force compared to the number ofpeople in the labor force or looking for a job. (Finances Qubec, 2011b). In order toovercome this shortage of qualified manpower, the government will present threesolutions: 1) increase the immigration rate, 2) increase the birth rate and 3) promote thetraining of a highly skilled workforce. According to these solutions, education will thusbe prioritized to ensure the economic development of Quebec an its competiveness.

    Figure 1: The growth of the population of 65 years and more is accelerating in Quebec whereas thedrop will affect 15 to 64 year olds.

    Source : Mouvement des caisses Desjardins (2009)

  • 8/4/2019 EN Guide against $ 1625 tuition fee hike

    13/58

    Guide Against the $1,625 Hike in Tuition FeesFdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec - 2011

    5

    2.2. Knowledge economyQuebec lives in a globalized economy focused on knowledge. In fact, the last years have been particularly hard toward certain sectors of the Quebec economy, notably in themanufacturing and forestry sectors. The Ministry of Finances of Quebec (FinancesQubec, 2011b) emphasizes that the Quebec economy is now directed more toward

    cutting-edge sectors such as: aerospace, multimedia, life sciences (pharmaceutics and biotechnology notably) and environmental technologies. To do this, it must rely oninnovation and the skills of its workers to distinguish itself from the emergingeconomies; especially as the new jobs require postsecondary degrees. In fact, we observethat in Quebec in 2009, nearly 64% of jobs are held by holders of postsecondary oruniversity degrees (MELS, 2010). Furthermore, according to the Department of HumanResources and Skills Development Canada (RHDCC, 2006), highly skilled professionswill represent nearly 70% of all the new jobs for the 2006-2015 period, notably due to theeffect of the transition of the economy toward a knowledge economy. The followingtables show this new reality quite well (Table 1 and Figure 2). Quebec thus has everyadvantage in promoting accessibility to studies and graduation of the greatest numberof Quebecers to revitalize its economy and thus overcome the challenges it faces.

    Table 1: Number of jobs in Quebec by level of education (in thousands)

  • 8/4/2019 EN Guide against $ 1625 tuition fee hike

    14/58

    Guide Against the $1,625 Hike in Tuition FeesFdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec - 2011

    6

    Figure 2: Rate of variation of jobs in Qubec from 1990 to 2009 according to the highest level ofeducation attained (in percentage)

    Source MELS (2010)

  • 8/4/2019 EN Guide against $ 1625 tuition fee hike

    15/58

    Guide Against the $1,625 Hike in Tuition FeesFdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec - 2011

    7

    2.3. The budget of familiesFollowing the recession, the level of indebtedness of Canadian and Quebec familiesbecame a priority and was the object of numerous evaluations.

    2.3.1.The indebtedness of familiesAccording to the data of the Canadian Financial Capability Survey (Statistique Canada

    2011), among Canadians aged between 19 and 64 years, 76% of them lived in anindebted household whose average debt was about $119,000. Not surprisingly, thereport concluded that young families were the most susceptible of finding themselves ina situation of financial instability when we compare the relation of their debts and theirincome and the relation between their debts and their assets.

    According to this survey, in 2009, an indebted family and counting a couple agedbetween 19 and 34 years had a relation between their debts and their income before taxof 180%. This means that for each bracketof $1,000 of pre-tax income, families owed $1,800.On the other hand, the relation between debts and income for families counting a couple in thegroup of 50 to 64 year olds was 125%. For each bracket of $1,000 of income before tax, they owed$1,250. (Statistique Canada 2011).

    These data are worrisome. According to the Bank of Canada, the most exposedhouseholds are those whose repayments are nearly 40% or more of their income, namely4.2% of the households of the Survey. A family whose income was below $50,000 ran sixtimes more risk of finding themselves in this group. Furthermore, this family had 1.6%more risk having debts worth 80% or more of their assets compared to families whoseincome oscillated between $50,000 and $79,000. To better understand the indebtednessof a family, we have to evaluate its annual expenses.

    2.3.2.Family expensesStill according to the Survey made by Statistics Canada (2011) expenses related to food,

    housing and clothing constituted nearly 52% of the expenses of a Canadian familysituated in the first quintile (20% of the poorest) of households. On the other hand, theupper fifth quintile of households with the highest income, devoted 27% of their incometo these same expenses. The income quintiles are presented in Figure 3.

  • 8/4/2019 EN Guide against $ 1625 tuition fee hike

    16/58

    Guide Against the $1,625 Hike in Tuition FeesFdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec - 2011

    8

    Table 2: Part of budget for the main categories of expenses according to the income quintile, 2009

    Source : Statistique Canada (2011)

    Although families have a difficult time attaining a balanced budget, many of them

    believe it is important to save for retirement, but also for the postsecondary studies oftheir children, as we will see in the following section.

    2.3.3.The savings of familiesAccording to the survey on the approaches regarding the planning of studies(Statistiques Canada, 2002) 95% of parents of 7 million children of the sample believethat the pursuit of studies after the secondary level is important or very important. Tomanage to save, most families have recourse to various means to fund their studies:personal savings, governmental student loans, bank loans, family loans and studentgrants. However, we observe that the expectations of parents in the financial planning oftheir children do not always correspond to reality. In fact, the percentage of students

    benefiting of grants is well below the projections of parents and conversely thepercentage of students having recourse to private loans from bank institutions is farsuperior to expectations (Statistique Canada, 2011).

    Figure 3 allows us to observe that parents of all horizons consider that the pursuit ofstudies of their children at the postsecondary level is important, but the level of savingsis not similar for everyone. In fact, the higher the income, the more savings are greater.Moreover, the survey reveals that more than 8 out of 10 (83%) of the 2.1 million parentswhose annual income is higher than $120,000 were savers. This percentage dropsregularly, from 7 to 11 points, for each inferior quintile. Nevertheless, of the millionparents found in the lowest income quintile, earning less than $32,000 per year in 2008,[only] 48% had saved for the postsecondary studies of their children (Statistique

    Canada, 2011). And even if these families managed to save, many of themunderestimated the necessary amount to put aside for the postsecondary studies of theirchildren, since they overestimate the possibility of their children having access to thesubsidies of student financial assistance programs.

  • 8/4/2019 EN Guide against $ 1625 tuition fee hike

    17/58

    Guide Against the $1,625 Hike in Tuition FeesFdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec - 2011

    9

    Figure 3: Percentage of savers and non-savers according to the income quintile of their household andthe highest level of education of the parents with children under 18 years, 2009.

    Source Guillemette (2011)

    The same is true for families that save for their retirement. The higher the income, themore they plan for retirement (Figure 4). Parents whose income is below $32,000 werethe most susceptible to not saving either for their retirement or the postsecondarystudies of their children (39% of respondants), while in those that had the highest

  • 8/4/2019 EN Guide against $ 1625 tuition fee hike

    18/58

    Guide Against the $1,625 Hike in Tuition FeesFdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec - 2011

    10

    income, only 2% had not saved for their retirement or the studies of the studies of theirchildren.

    Figure 4: Savings behavior for retirement and for postsecondary studies according to the incomequintile of the household, 2009

    Source Guillemette (2011)

  • 8/4/2019 EN Guide against $ 1625 tuition fee hike

    19/58

    Guide Against the $1,625 Hike in Tuition FeesFdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec - 2011

    11

    3. Postsecondary studies3.1. Definition of accessibilityAccessibility to postsecondary studies above all defined admission to a CEGEP or auniversity. For its part, the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC) defines

    accessibility as the ability of people from all horizons to obtain the postsecondaryeducation they wish (CMEC, 2007, p.1). As this definition presupposes, various factorsinfluence the ability of an individual to be admitted to a postsecondary institution.The Comit consultatif sur laccessibilit financire aux tudes (CCAFE, 2004) specifies thatthe definition of accessibility must take into account all the steps leading to success [ofstudy projects]. The CCAFE thus includes perseverance during studies in the notion ofaccessibility and other measures commonly used for evaluation, notably the evolution ofthe student population, participation rate, educational expectancy and participationbased on the socioeconomic profile of students. This more complete definition is the oneshared by the FEUQ.

    Accessibility is a complex multifactor phenomenon: factor alone can explain it entirely(CCAFE, 2004). The literature (CMEC, 2007) overall identifies the following factors ashaving an influence on accessibility to studies: the socioeconomic milieu (parentaleducation, parental income, the first generations of students, remoteness and workhours during studies), personal characteristics (age, gender, parental responsibilities),the costs of postsecondary studies (tuition fees and other costs), and the perception ofobstacles, costs and the returns on postsecondary studies (financial obstacles, theknowledge of assistance offered, the perception of returns, the aversion toindebtedness). However, it is important to mention that although various factors canexplain access to postsecondary studies, few of them can be modified by thegovernment and through public policies, but we will return to this.

    3.1.1.The costs of studies have an influence on accessibility

    The student bill is made up of two main expenses: 1) tuition fees and 2) mandatoryinstitutional fees (MIF or ancillary fees). In addition to these fees that student must payare added costs associated withy didactic material. Various other indirect expensesassociated to studies also complete student expenses notably through living expenses:rent, food, transportation and clothing. Contrary to these other fees, tuition fees and MIFmust obligatorily be paid at the beginning of term, under sanction of the imposition ofpenalties and interest for the default of payment, and thus constitutes a difficult step inthe financial year of students.

    Both theory and practice show that tuition fees have an impact on accessibility touniversity studies. In a literature review, the CMEC (2007) reaches a clear conclusion between the relation between the increase in tuition fees and participation inpostsecondary studies: the researches based on the most rigorous methods conclude there is asignificant relation, though decreasing in time, whereas studies relying on some variables do notfind any connection or conclude on the necessity of deepening the research (p.26). Among thestudies surveyed by the CMEC that of Kane (1995) notably indicated that each level of$1,000 increase makes the number of enrollments drop by 1.4%. The Canadian studies ofthis literature review noticed for their part a negative link between tuition fee increases

  • 8/4/2019 EN Guide against $ 1625 tuition fee hike

    20/58

    Guide Against the $1,625 Hike in Tuition FeesFdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec - 2011

    12

    and participation in university studies. Furthermore, these studies determined thatsignificant tuition fee hikes in certain targeted fields (law, medicine) had specificallyreduced the participation of students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Moreover, thisconclusion was taken up by Merani and his collaborators (2010) in their comparativestudy throughout Canada of medicine students. They conclude that Quebec studentshad 22% more chances of coming from remote regions from the major urban centers ordisadvantaged backgrounds than their Canadian colleagues. Furthermore, studentscoming from rural or disadvantaged milieus were more susceptible of returning to theirmilieu of origin, which contributes to the revalorization of regions and theirdevelopment.

    A generally expressed myth is that participation in university studies in Canada isconstantly growing, which discredits the thesis according to which tuition fee hikeshave a negative impact on accessibility. In fact, according to the Canada MillenniumScholarship Foundation (Berger et coll., 2009), the participation rate in university studiesis deceasing in most Canadian provinces. This decrease explains in part the vigor of the job market, though it is quite probable that the significant tuition fee increases had an

    impact. We can thus not affirm that tuition fee hikes do not have an impact onparticipation on this basis.

    In the same line of thought, we tend to affirm that tuition fees do not have an impact onaccessibility by evoking the vertiginous studies participation rate in Nova Scotia: 40% in2006-2007 (Kwong, 2002 dans CMEC, 2007), compared to a slender 19% in Quebec.Now, these data forget two factors. On the one had, in Nova Scotia only 23% of studentswho are originally from Nova Scotia are enrolled in a university (FCBEM, 2009): theuniversities of this province receive a substantial quantity of students from outside theprovince. Next, the data for Quebec do not take into account the important role of thecollege network. Quebec university programs are in general shorter by one year, and thesecond year of pre-university college programs take the place of first university year in

    the English Canadian system. According to the estimates of the CMSF, the taking intoaccount of the participation rate of the second year of college pre-university programs inthe calculation give a participation rate of 27%. This rate is also underestimated giventhe significant percentage of students that go from the technical sector at the collegelevel toward university education.

    On the other hand, and as we have just seen, everything is a question of method.According to the education indicators of MELS (2010), the access rate to universitystudies in Quebec in 2008-2009 is 43.7%, namely a higher percentage than we find in theparticipation rate of Nova Scotia we just evoked.

    Figure 5 shows the evolution, in Canada, of the participation in postsecondary studies in

    Canada. These data include CGEP for Quebec and colleges for the rest of Canada, theparallel between the educational levels is sometimes difficult to ascertain, but the overallportrait allows us to have a more global vision of current trends in higher education.According to the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, the participation rate inOntario dropped from 64% in 1997 to 55 % in 2006. In the prairies, la situation wasalready worse but followed a similar curve, going from 57% in 1999 to 45% in 2006. Inthe Atlantic regions, bringing together all the Maritime provinces, where a significantpercentage of young people go study in Nova Scotia, participation dropped by 6 points

  • 8/4/2019 EN Guide against $ 1625 tuition fee hike

    21/58

    Guide Against the $1,625 Hike in Tuition FeesFdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec - 2011

    13

    between the period going from 1997 to 2006, going from 65% to 59%. The situation issimilar in British Columbia, where the rate of participation went from 60% to 46% over aperiod ranging from 1993 to 2001. Finally, in Quebec, the participation rate also droppedfrom 73% at the beginning of the 1990s to 64% in 2006. (FCBEM, 2009) All proportionsequal, Qubec has a higher participation in postsecondary studies than the otherCanadian provinces. The drop in participation is nonetheless masked, both here and inthe other provinces, by the growing number of student population, due to the growth ofthe population in general, and thus the population of 18 to 24 years is here considered.

    Figure 5: Participation rate in postsecondary studies in Canada by province, between 1993 and 2006

    Source : Le prix du savoir. Fondation canadienne des bourses dtudes du millnaire. 2009

    The use of the access rate seems to us the most pertinent indicator to this effect. Itconsists of an indicator that measures the percentage of a generation that is enrolled thefirst time in studies to obtain a degree. Given the methodological differences betweenthe rates of participation which measure the percentage of youth of a specific agebracket, 18-24 years in this case and the access rate measured by MELS, it is hazardousfor us to compare ourselves with other Canadian provinces. We can nevertheless notethat the access rate of the university undergraduate level in Quebec jumped nearly 10%between 1997-1998 and 2008-2009, going from 33.9% to 43.7% over this period a periodmarked essentially by a university tuition fee freeze.

    In conclusion, tuition fees have an impact on accessibility to studies and theparticipation rate in university studies. The tuition fee hike, of $1,625 per year after afixed period, announced by the Charest government during the last budget will thushave an important impact on accessibility to studies of numerous students. Theevaluation of these impacts and the analysis of these budgetary measures will be

    presented in the next sections.3.2. Student billUniversity tuition fees have been constantly increasing since 2007. Furthermore,although regulated since this date, mandatory institutional fees continue to increase in acertain and constant manner. Combined, these increases total an average not far from a$600 hike for all Quebec students. In tuition fees alone, this represents an increase of30% since 2007.

  • 8/4/2019 EN Guide against $ 1625 tuition fee hike

    22/58

    Guide Against the $1,625 Hike in Tuition FeesFdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec - 2011

    14

    According to the data collected by the FEUQ, average institutional fees paid by Quebecstudents for the university year 2010-2011 through its university network rose to $624.25 (FEUQ 2010b). They thus form a bit more than 20% of the total bill. Just liketuition fees, they are incompressible and must be paid, for the most part, as of the beginning of the academic year so that thestudent is enrolled.

    Figure 5 shows very well the relativeimportance of the different expenses related toeducation in 2010. Although tuition feesrepresent more than half of the student bill, weeasily see the scope of other expenses and theimportance of taking them into account whenwe invoke the fees paid by students. TheCCAFE (2008) denounced the fact that thegovernment did not seem to take into accountall the fees in its discourse. There does not

    seem to have been a change since.The new increase announced in the 2011-2012 budget represents an additional increase of75% of the portion of tuition fees. Cumulatedsince 2007, the hikes represent an increase of127%, for a total of $3,793 in tuition fees. Thisrepresents more than double their 2007 level.By adding the average of mandatory institutional fees paid by students and assumingan increase limited by the regulation presently in force, the total bill at enrollment willthus be $4,700 in 2016-2017. The student bill since 1968 and its projection until the end ofthe measures proposed in the budget are presented in Figure 7.

    2168$624$

    683$

    FraisdescolaritFIOMatrielscolaire

    Figure 6: Student Bill in 2011

  • 8/4/2019 EN Guide against $ 1625 tuition fee hike

    23/58

    Guide Against the $1,625 Hike in Tuition FeesFdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec - 2011

    15

    Figure 7: Progression of the student bill from 1968 to 2016

    Contrary to the belief generally expressed, the student contribution to universityfinancing has thus continued to grow substantially and in a continuous manner in thelast decades. During the tuition fee freeze period, the growth of the overall bill, thus bytaking into account mandatory institutional fees, bring us close to the growth of the CPI.

    We must also note that students pay various fees that are not accounted for in the chart,mostly for textbooks and books, but also for essential equipment to their discipline, forexample laboratory accessories. The overall annual bill is thus higher than what ispresented here.

    3.3. Student conditionsIn 2010-2011, the FEUQ produced the Survey on the sources and modes of fundingundergraduate students. This study, conducted on 12,619 respondents during 2009-2010,draws a global picture of the undergraduate university population. The data obtainedare thus very close to those collected in 2007 by Student Financial Assistance, in itsEnqute sur les conditions de vie des tudiants de la formation professionnelle, du collgial et de

    luniversit. The FEUQ also produced, in 2007, a study on The sources and modes of fundinggraduate students. These three researches, as well as the The Price of Knowledge, 3rd edition,of the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation allows us to obtain an accurateportrait of the Quebec student population.

    3.3.1.Who is the average student?The average fulltime student is on average aged 22.9 years at the undergraduate level,28.5 years at the masters and 31.2 years at the doctorate. According to the most recent

    0

    500

    1000

    1500

    2000

    2500

    3000

    3500

    4000

    4500

    5000

    Montant($de2010)

    Totalfacture

    In]lationdepuis1968

    Fraisdescolarit

  • 8/4/2019 EN Guide against $ 1625 tuition fee hike

    24/58

    Guide Against the $1,625 Hike in Tuition FeesFdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec - 2011

    16

    data of the ministry, in 2010-2011, 82.9% of students were at the undergraduate level,12.7% were at the masters and 4.3% were at the doctorate (MELS, 2011). According tothe data of Student financial assistance, 39.1% of university students had recourse tostudent financial assistance in 2007 (AFE, 2007), and the Federation obtained a similarnumber two years later.

    University students mostly live near the family home. In fact, only 32.2% ofundergraduate students declared living with their parents (FEUQ, 2010a), while thisnumber was reduced to 11% of students at the masters and 5.9% at the doctorate(CNCS-FEUQ, 2007). The main reason (47.1%) evoked by students to explain why theydo not live with their parents during their studies is the fact that the family home issituated far from the educational institution attended (AFE, 2007). The second reason(30.1%) is the search for autonomy, often correlated with age. This explains why thepercentage of graduate students living with their parents is lower.

    Quebec students are far from coming from very rich families. The median tells us that50% of undergraduate students come from a family having $65,000 or less annually

    (FEUQ, 2010a). The lowest quartile at $35,000 annually is quite worrying, indicating that25% of students live in an extremely precarious situation. The average at $76,700indicates that a certain number of students come from families with very high salaries.

    On the other hand, it is important to underline that a substantial number of universitystudents are first generation students, namely that their parents have a college educationor less. According to the data collected by Student Financial Assistance (AFE, 2007), thenfor the research by the FEUQ on the sources and modes of funding (FEUQ, 2010a), about45% of university students have parents who never attended university. This rateincreases to 70% for universities situated in the regions. While the economy of Quebectransforms itself and demands that more and more new workers have a high-leveleducation and that successive governments put in place measures to encourage stronger

    graduation of the population, these statistics allow two observations. Firstly, theaccessibility policies for studies have allowed attendance of postsecondary studies togrow considerably, a situation that is beneficial for the province. Secondly, these figuresremind us that this trend is young in Quebec, particularly in the regions, and that it iseasily weakened by policies directly affecting financial accessibility for future students.The study of Student Financial Assistance indicates to us that recipients of studentfinancial assistance programs also have more chances of being first-generation studentsthan their non-recipient colleagues (AFE, 2007). This population is thus even morevulnerable to policies reducing accessibility to studies.

    Table 3: Summary of the socioeconomic characteristics of students

    Undergraduate Masters DoctoratePercentage of the total population 82,9 % 12,7 % 4,3 %Average age 22,9 years 28,5 years 31,2 yearsPercentage of students living with theirparents 32,2 % 11 % 5,9 %

    Percentage of students benefiting fromStudent Financial Assistance 39,1% 30%

    Source : Enqute sur les sources et modes de financement des tudiants au premier cycle (FEUQ, 2010), Les sourceset modes de financement des tudiant aux cycles suprieurs (FEUQ, 2007)

  • 8/4/2019 EN Guide against $ 1625 tuition fee hike

    25/58

    Guide Against the $1,625 Hike in Tuition FeesFdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec - 2011

    17

    3.3.2.The student budgetThe annual average undergraduate student budget is situated at $13,330 per year. Byobserving the quartiles, we observe that 25% of the full-time student population at the

    university undergraduate level lives with less than $7,400 per year and that 50% ofstudents have an annual budget of $12,200 or less (FEUQ, 2010a).

    For the same university year, tuition fees, then $1,968, thus represented more than 14.8%of their budget. To these expenses are added mandatory institutional fees, whoseaverage is situated at $624.25 (FEUQ 2010b) and fees for textbooks, with an average of$670 annually (FEUQ 2010a). Once agglomerated, the expenses for studies thenrepresents a little more than 25% of the overall incomes of most students.

    In order to pay these amounts, we observe a high percentage of students workingduring studies. Thus, 81% of full-time students declared working to meet their needs.The majority of respondents of the study declared working at least 16 hours per week,

    and the same during the university term. The average of hours worked during the termis situated at 18.8 hours. The Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation declared in2009 (FCBEM, 2009) that students enrolled full-time in a university or a college workmore than ever. In fact, according to the Labor Force Survey (LFS) [of Statistics Canada],52% of women and 41% of men aged from 20 to 24 years that are studying full-time helda job during the 2007-2008 university year(Usalcas et Bowlby, 2006).

    Such a high number of hours worked greatly affects the capacity of students toconcentrate on their studies. In fact, the fact of working 20 hours or more per weekwhile pursuing full-time studies can increase the level of stress, have an effect onacademic performance and increase absenteeism and the risk of dropping out (Usalcas,2006). On its side, the CCAFE affirmed that beyond 15 hours of work, academic results

    were affected (CCAFE, 2004).

    In graduate students, the average annual income is slightly higher, with an average ofaround $15,617 at the masters and $22,015 at the doctorate,4 including grants for studyprojects, the median being at 16 000 $ and 23 000 $ respectively. However, we notice thatonly 29.8 of students receive such grants, and their distribution is unequal betweensectors: 40.5% of students in pure and applied sciences receive them compared to 15% ofstudents in education. Out of the total remuneration, 47.8% came from hours workedoutside the campus and 11.2% of hours worked on campus, for a total of 59.0% of theannual budget coming from work (CNCS-FEUQ, 2007).

    In graduate studies, it is a bit more than 70% of students that said they had to workduring their studies to meet their needs and the average hours they had to work was25.1 h. of course, the consequences related to such a high number of hours of work forundergraduate students also applies to graduate student. We should also note that the

    4 Ces donnes ont t recroises de la base de donnes CNCS-FEUQ (2007) Les sources etmodes de financement des tudiants aux cycles suprieurs afin den extraire les revenus destudiants temps plein pour les deux ordre denseignement.

  • 8/4/2019 EN Guide against $ 1625 tuition fee hike

    26/58

    Guide Against the $1,625 Hike in Tuition FeesFdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec - 2011

    18

    prolongation of graduate studies has harmful effects both for the student researcher andsociety, since his professional integration is delayed (CNCS-FEUQ, 2008).

    Table 4: Summary of financial characteristics of students

    Undergraduate Graduate studies

    Average annual income 13 330 $ 24 000 $Number of hours worked during studies 18,8 25,1Source : Enqute sur les sources et modes de financement des tudiants au premier cycle (FEUQ, 2010), Les sourceset modes de financement des tudiant aux cycles suprieurs (FEUQ, 2007)

    3.3.3.Student indebtednessAnnual indebtedness is distributed among various sources of indebtedness. Thus,42.5% of students accumulated debt from SFA, 26,7% accumulated debts related tocredit cards, 20.9% have access to a line of credit or a personal loan and 16.9% indebtthemselves with their families or friends. Obviously, a percentage of them cumulatedifferent sources. In total, it is 65% of full-time university students at the undergraduate

    level that accumulate debts during their studies, the average debt being nearly $14,000.Half of them have indebtedness attaining at least $11,000, which greatly harms theirchances of pursuing their studies in graduate studies (FEUQ, 2010a).

    More striking still, only 47% of undergraduate students have recourse to studentfinancial assistance (SFA), the others only cumulate parental debts or private debts.(FEUQ, 2011b). The last type of debt includes certain disadvantages: interest is generallyhigher, and must be repaid during studies. Furthermore, there is no maximum loanlimit, above which the amount is transferred into bursaries. In comparison, the interestassociated with SFA loans are assumed by the government during the entire duration ofstudies. The fact of not having recourse to SFA is often associated with families justexceeding the too restrictive parameters, taken into account by the program, and thusforcing students to find their own funding in another manner. The average private debtis $8,043, which is nonetheless worrisome.

    If we take into account the number of sources of debts, only 22% fund their studies withonly one source of indebtedness (among: parents and friends, SFA or private). Next,36% of students have recourse to two different sources to fund their studies and 7%have recourse to three sources (FEUQ, 2011b).

    In graduate students, accumulated indebtedness during studies, updated in todaysdollars, rises on average to $16,187 for masters students in 2005-2006 and this amountrises to $23,660 for doctoral students. The question of the distribution of the debt was

    not asked to these students, but there is no reason to doubt that it is significantlydifferent from that of their colleagues in the bachelors (CNCS-FEUQ, 2007).

    Contrary to an idea often expressed, students do not generally live beyond their means.In fact, we notice that recreational expenses and other expenses to fill living needs arerelatively stable regardless of the indebtedness of a student (FEUQ, 2011b). This istestimony to a minimal and human need in terms of recreation, but this is not the sourceof the increase in indebtedness in students. Rent is a variable that strongly affects

  • 8/4/2019 EN Guide against $ 1625 tuition fee hike

    27/58

    Guide Against the $1,625 Hike in Tuition FeesFdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec - 2011

    19

    indebtedness, however, students are captive to the housing market and cannot oftencontrol this variable.

    The same observation can be made for indebtedness related to transportation. In thisfield, students are captive to the local transportation network and fuel taxes, theeffectiveness of the public transit network and the proximity of student housing to the

    institution attended. Unsurprisingly, students from the region of Montreal, wherepublic transit is well developed, but where housing is not necessarily bordering theuniversity, mostly choose public transit. Students outside the metropolitan region,however, seem more apt to finding housing near the university, as is seen by themassive use of walking and the bicycle. However, those who do not have this chancemust fall back on the automobile, as they do not have the possibility of being servicedby a public transportation system responding to their needs.

    Table 5 : Description of the transportation mode used most frequently in autumn 2009 based on theregion of studies

    Montral Qubec Central

    regions

    Remote

    regionsPublictransit 73% 40% 31% 6%

    Bicycle 4% 5% 2% 1%

    Walking 11% 23% 27% 29%

    Car-pooling 2% 4% 5% 7%

    Personalvehicle 9% 27% 32% 55%

    Source : Lendettement tudiant : tat des lieux, dterminants et impacts, FEUQ, paratre.

    Unsurprisingly, indebtedness also increases with food expenses, which is the seconditem of expenses in importance in living expenses of students with an average expenseof $3,294 and a median of $2,400. The FEUQ also notices that the socioeconomic factors

    of students do not influence this expense, but that it tends to grow with age (FEUQ,2010a). We should note that only half of students succeed in feeding themselves on $7 aday, the criteria of SFA (FEUQ, 2010a). Now, for some years, the price of food hasincreased substantially, making the food market much harder for students and forcingthem to use their imaginations. Statistics Canada evaluates the increase in the price offood bought in stores at 4.8% for the period of 12 months ending in June, while theoverall CPI is situated at 3.1% for the same period. By withdrawing food and energy, theCPI would rather have been 1.4% for the same period of 12 months (Statistiques Canada,2011). The pressure on students, who cannot compress this expense indefinitely, forhealth reasons, is thus very great.

  • 8/4/2019 EN Guide against $ 1625 tuition fee hike

    28/58

    Guide Against the $1,625 Hike in Tuition FeesFdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec - 2011

    20

    4.Analyses of budgetary measures4.1. The university financing plan of the Quebec governmentThe 2011-2012 Budget of the Quebec government including a complete section entitledA funding plan of Quebec universities to give Quebec the means to fulfill its ambitions. The

    objective of this plan is to take up where the former university financing plan,introduced in 2007 and spread out until 2012, finished.

    Thanks to this plan, university institutions will be ensured to have the necessary means toincrease the quality of education they offer students. This plan will thus directly contribute tothe improvement of university training, considered as the key to success in a modern societyand economy.

    It will provide new means to universities, important pillars of the knowledge economy.Finances Qubec. (2011a).

    The budget is thus on the agenda of the next five-year funding plan of Quebecuniversities, on the one hand to maintain the current network and on the other hand to

    improve it. The four objectives of the plan are: meet the financing needs ofuniversities, distribute in a fair manner the contribution of each, ensure theaccessibility of students is maintained for university education and put in placeperformance commitments. However, the premise according to which the governmentbases itself to put in place these objectives are, at best, disheartening, mainly for what isthe question of the contribution of the different actors.

    4.1.1.Operating expensesThe first observation the budget makes on university financing, in a section named:Difficulties we cannot deny, the government affirms that our universities are betterequipped than Canadian universities in regard to subsidized research and capital

    assets. The budget affirms, however, as a basis on which to justify the financing planthat Quebec universities spend less than those in the rest of Canada for operations.Now, in the absence of study of real needs, in which the shortcomings of the systemcould emerge, how can we affirm that the fact that Quebec universities spend less is afactor revealing a problem to fill? The FEUQ is not a priori against an improvement ofthe system, but the current proposal does not identify any of the needs of the university,and does not refer to any credible study on the subject. The only point of comparisonthat is proposed is the study of the CRPUQ on the underfunding of universities, whichwe will study in another section of this document.

    4.1.2.A fair contributionIn order to put down measures to calculate the fair share of each of the parts inuniversity financing, the government calls, in turn, on two notions: the contribution tothe overall revenues of universities, and the historic contribution of students.

    Firstly, the government deems that students do not contribute enough to the overallfunding of Quebec universities, with a support of the university year 1964-1965, duringwhich it provided 26.4% of the total funding. This demagogic reasoning does not standthe test of analysis. We should note that that university year saw the Parent Report

  • 8/4/2019 EN Guide against $ 1625 tuition fee hike

    29/58

    Guide Against the $1,625 Hike in Tuition FeesFdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec - 2011

    21

    being produced, which oriented all the university network, notably by putting in place aphilosophy of university accessibility for all of Quebec. Since in effect, during theseyears, the universities were still private entities and that it is only on May 13, 1964, thatthe Ministry of Education of Quebec was created (L.R.Q., chapitre M-15) thus barely afew months before the year that we are taking here as a reference. The financialaccessibility of the network was then weak, and only the regions of Montreal, Quebecand Sherbrooke were serviced by university institutions, undermining by this fact thephysical accessibility of Quebecers living outside the major centers. The year followingthis reference, namely 1966-1967, sees the end of the so-called classical education and thecreation of the CEGEP networks (L.R.Q., chapitre C-29).

    We are thus at the place of the university network that we know today. These changeshappened thanks to the choice society, with the goal of promoting access to theuniversity network and social mobility of all the population. By referring to this date isonly an ideological attempt to accept the financial needs of universities, and not a proofof this need. Proof that should be based on the needs of studies, according to theindicators developed and quantified: exercise that still has not been tried up until now.

    The date of 1968 is not a better option. In fact, it is at the end of this year, following astudent strike, that the Quebec university network emerged. According to the revisedstudent population of 2010-2011, the UQ network brought together not far from 30% ofthe total population. Its main asset remains nevertheless its important contribution tothe improvement of geographical accessibility to studies. In this network, the students ofAbiti-Tmiscamingue, Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, the Outaouais, Trois-Rivires and theBas-St-Laurent would have no other choice than to exile themselves in Montral, Qubecor Sherbrooke to do their studies, requiring much higher living expenses.

    Why then did the government choose this date? Error! Reference source not found. wasconstructed by taking the level of tuition fees and by indexing them until 2016. The

    observation is clear: since 1968, no year has cost more in terms of tuition fees, in constantdollars, than 1968. These pious vows of intergenerational equity by thus taking their flu:the choice of 1968 serves to maximize the tuition fee increases and pursuing the Liberalideal of a more significant individualism in public services, to the detriment of thechoice that Quebec society has made during the last 40 years.

  • 8/4/2019 EN Guide against $ 1625 tuition fee hike

    30/58

    Guide Against the $1,625 Hike in Tuition FeesFdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec - 2011

    22

    Figure 8 Amount in 2016 dollars of total university fees from 1968 to 2016

    Behind this chart, we can pinpoint some very interesting data. The dates chosen on thecurve of tuition fees corresponds, in order, to the absolute maximum of the chart (1968),date of the first election of the Parti Qubcois (1976), date of the graduation of JeanCharest, Premier and minister of youth (1981); date of the graduation of Line

    Beauchamp, Minister of Education, Leisure and Sports (1985); absolute minimum ofchart (1989); maximum attained with the freeze of 1994 (1994); and maximum attainedwith the increase of the university financing plan. We also immediately observe thatequity between the current young generation and those of our leaders is far by virtue ofan increase in tuition fees.

    As we will see further on in the analysis of budgetary measures, the financing plan alsopresents very few measures helping the young generation toward access to universitystudies. Once again, the intergenerational equity so brilliantly evoked by thegovernment takes a hit.

    4.2. Analysis of under-financingThe financing plan of universities is based mainly on two data to justify the chronicneed for money in universities: the deficits of universities during the last years and thecomparative under-financing of universities. According to the CRPUQ, it is thus$620 M that are missing in Quebec universities. Let us analyze this figure.

    In the first place, it is important to underline that these figures represent, according tothe calculation of the CREPUQ, the difference in financing between the Quebec

    3865$

    2336$

    1468$

    1153$ 971$

    2585$

    3793$

    4713$

    -$

    500$

    1000$

    1500$

    2000$

    2500$

    3000$

    3500$

    4000$4500$

    5000$

    1968

    1970

    1972

    1974

    1976

    1978

    1980

    1982

    1984

    1986

    1988

    1990

    1992

    1994

    1996

    1998

    2000

    2002

    2004

    2006

    2008

    2010

    2012

    2014

    2016

    Montantindex

    Annedebase

    Fraisdescolarit

    Facturetotale

    Fraisde2011-2012

  • 8/4/2019 EN Guide against $ 1625 tuition fee hike

    31/58

  • 8/4/2019 EN Guide against $ 1625 tuition fee hike

    32/58

    Guide Against the $1,625 Hike in Tuition FeesFdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec - 2011

    24

    Canada. He concludes that overall university expenses per student were 6%higher in Quebec than in the rest of Canada.

    Still according to Demers, this higher expense is explained by higher expenses inteaching personnel, administration, computer and communications activities,research and financial expenses (idem). The study of the CREPUQ does not

    focus on the manner in which the funds are spent: it only compares the overallfunds of neighboring universities.

    Subsidized research funds were excluded from the analysis. Now, Quebecuniversities spend more on this than those of other Canadian provinces. In 2008-2009, Quebec universities spent $7,878 per student, compared to $6,225 in the restof Canada. (MELS 2010, p. 23)

    The funds allocated to fixed assets were also excluded from the analysis of theCREPUQ. Once again, Quebec funds or expenses are higher: $3,202 per student inQuebec compared to $2,579 in the rest of Canada. (MELS 2010, p. 23)

    As an example, if we only used the shortfall of $654 per student evoked by MELS in the

    consultation booklet of the meeting of the education partners (MELS 2010, p. 23), wewould find ourselves with an annual shortfall of $130 M, without taking into accountthe differences in the cost of living. Everything hinges on a question of method!

    Even if Canadian universities have more resources than their Quebec colleagues, theyare nonetheless experiencing financial problems. One example, among others, comes tous from Judith Woodsworth, former president of Concordia University. In an interviewto La Presse, she said:

    Do you regret having left the post of rector of Laurentienne University, in Sudbury, wheretuition fees attained $5,000 per year, twice the Quebec amount?

    "Even with tuition fees of $5,000, we had financial problems," she answered.7

    The question of financing is not everything: we must especially know what we are goingto do with this money. We have to ask ourselves what objectives will be attained if $620M was effectively invested by Quebec. We should note that, for the committee, thisamount only represents the lag to fill for Quebec to join the Canadian average. By thevery fact, continuing to estimate the amount the Quebec network should enjoy based onits catching up to the Canadian average only puts us in a reactive position with regardto other universities. Too rare are those that have really tried to define this amount based on detected needs, measurable and tangible that we identify in our Quebecuniversities. Unfortunately, the government seems to deem such a process useless,since it did not even try it in the making of the 2011-2012 Budget.

    Finally, there is still no proof or quantification of the needs of the university network orthe current use of amounts allocated to universities. Yet, while we ask students to raisein a drastic manner their contribution to the university network, should we not provide,

    7 Judith Woodsworth, entrevue de dbut de mandat, 1er novembre 2008, La Presse

  • 8/4/2019 EN Guide against $ 1625 tuition fee hike

    33/58

    Guide Against the $1,625 Hike in Tuition FeesFdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec - 2011

    25

    at the same time, proof that this money is necessary? Here is an additional proof thatthis hike is only ideology and not based on tangible and thought-out facts.

    4.3. The family contributionA myth that is often spread is the ability of families to pay the studies of their children.

    According to the data of Student Financial Assistance, only 60.7% of children receivedparental assistance, while this number dropped to 34.5% in recipients of the loans andbursaries program (AFE, 2007).

    If we study the population in greater depth, we observe that 60% of undergraduatestudents received such financial assistance, and that this aid only represented 22.4% oftheir total budget. In absolute numbers, parental aid was less or equal to $2,600 for atleast half the students receiving parental aid. By adding tuition fees and mandatoryinstitutional fees, this amount does not represent a sufficient amount to pay foruniversity enrolment. Furthermore, 25 % of them (thus 15% of total students) had tocontent themselves with an amount of $1,500 at least, which does not attain the currentlevel of tuition fees (FEUQ, 2010a). In their graduate student colleagues, 33% of students

    received such aid and it represented between 21% and 53% of their incomes. Comparedto their undergraduate colleagues, graduate students received a higher average parentalaid, with an average of $5,150 (CNCS-FEUQ, 2007). An inclusive study of graduatestudents, however, reveals that younger students received a greater contribution fromtheir parents.

    The current threshold of the parental contribution is not adjusted to the real situation ofQuebec families, being largely below the real threshold where parents can reasonablybegin to contribute to the education of their children. The direct effect of this situation isstudent indebtedness that will need financial assistance, but that is refused this becausethe income of their parents only just exceeds an arbitrarily fixed amount that is muchtoo low. These students must thus turn toward another source of funding, often private,which leads to a much higher indebtedness than if the student had had access to loansand bursaries. The other choice offered to these students is to abandon their studyprojects for a period of two years to become independent from their parents, whichcreates costs that are both personal and social.

    To this effect, the FEUQ has demanded, for many years, an increase in the threshold ofthe parental contribution taken into account by the SFA program. The demand of theFederation is to minimally fill the low-income cutoff and to approach the aid programsof other Canadian provinces by raising the parental contribution threshold to $45,000per year and by ensuring the annual indexation of that amount.

  • 8/4/2019 EN Guide against $ 1625 tuition fee hike

    34/58

    Guide Against the $1,625 Hike in Tuition FeesFdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec - 2011

    26

    Table 6 Low-income cutoff of Statistics Canada, before tax, 2008

    Number ofperson perhousehold

    30 000 to 99 999 inhabitants 100,000 to 499,999inhabitants

    500,000 inhabitants andmore

    1 person 18 976 $ 19 094 $ 22 171 $

    2 persons 23 623 $ 23 769 $ 27 601 $

    3 persons 29 041 $ 29 222 $ 33 933 $

    4 persons 35 261 $ 35 480 $ 41 198 $Source : Conseil national du bien-tre social 2008.

    The CCAFE, moreover, took a similar position to that of the FEUQ in its study onfinancial accessibility and the success of study projects. The committee emphasized that,to relievelower middle class families, it is necessary to reduce the parental contribution required[]. (CCAFE 2004, p. 5). Furthermore, according to a study of the Ministry of

    Education published in 2003, 67.9% of student recipients of loans and bursaries did notreceive parental contribution (MELS, 2007).

    The proposed measure concerning the familial contribution is thus insufficient to fill thecurrent deficiencies of the program. The new threshold of $35,000 proposed over aperiod of time barely covers the indexation of the current threshold and does notcorrespond to a significant improvement of the program. In 2016-2017, we will thusalways be some $10,000 below the demand of the FEUQ and that formulated by theCCAFE. Furthermore, the amount will still not exceed the low-income cutoff of 2008,calculated by Statistics Canada, while all the actors of society agree in saying that thecost of living has increased since. We can, moreover, notice this by the differentincreases in the minimum wage of the last years, bringing it to $9.65/h on May 1, 2011, asalary that we hope will be raised during the next five years to keep the purchasingpower of workers. In addition, two parents on minimum wage make $40,144 per year in2011 and if the wage follows inflation forecast in the budget, they will make$43,680 ($10.50/h). Despite this low family income, they will still have to continue tocontribute to the education of their children. The parental income being consideredautomatic, the only recourse that students from less well off families have, in case of thenon-contribution of their parents, will be, once again, to turn to the courts, while weknow very well that the parents do not even have the means to help them financially

    As we will see further on, all the measures presented to improve SFA will be paid by theincrease in tuition fees. In this perspective, the universities are thus in the process of

    paying for an improvement, no matter how minimal it may be, also affecting collegestudents and professional training, while the government put sin no money to helpthese same students. It would thus be just to use the amounts coming from the hike tomaintain maximum loan limits for all students and that the government inject money tocover the improvements.

  • 8/4/2019 EN Guide against $ 1625 tuition fee hike

    35/58

    Guide Against the $1,625 Hike in Tuition FeesFdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec - 2011

    27

    Table 7: Percentage of family income representing the living expenses of a student

    Income 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017100 000 13% 13% 14% 15% 15% 16%90 000 15% 15% 16% 16% 17% 17%80 000 17% 17% 17% 18% 19% 20%70 000 19% 19% 20% 21% 22% 22%60 000 22% 22% 23% 24% 25% 26%50 000 27% 27% 28% 29% 30% 31%40 000 33% 34% 35% 36% 38% 39%35 000 38% 38% 40% 42% 43% 45%Total

    expenses 13 264,72 $ 13 420,04 $ 13 983,45 $ 14 552,74 $ 15 128,07 $ 15 709,64 $

    Source : Analyse des mesures budgtaires 2011-2012, FEUQ, 2011

    By taking the average expenses for living expenses made in 2009 by students ($9,960)(FEUQ, 2010a) and by indexing this amount at the total amounts of the student bills, wecan find the portion of family income that represents the expenses of their child (see

    Table 6). the same rate as SFA (we suppose here an indexation of the program), then byadding

    We rapidly remark that living expenses take a disproportionate important in relation tosalary. Even a salary of $100 000, these expenses correspond, over time, to 16 % ofincome. For families at minimum wage, namely just above $35,000 per year where nocontribution is required, the total expenses of the student represent 45% of income. Ofcourse, students also contribute to their studies, but we now easily understand whyparents cannot follow their cadence. The FEUQ thus concludes that if parents do notprovide minimally the money associated with enrollment costs to university, it is notthat they do not want to. They can simply not help their children more.

    The contribution calculated by student financial assistance is found in Table 8. We cansee that, even here, the amounts rapidly become very significant in relation to the totalsalary. Moreover, a family living with as low a salary as $60,000 per year in 2016-2017will be reputed to have sufficient money to assume the entire university student bill, of asum of $4,700. We should note that the only recourse in case of the non-participation ofthe parents is the use of the courts, which greatly risks harming family relations. Thestudent is then stuck and must find another source of funding, namely by reducing thehours spent in school to increase work hours, or increasing the sources of indebtedness.

    Table 8: Parental contribution calculated by Student Financial Assistance, in percentage of salary

    Income 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-217

    100 000 21% 19% 19% 18% 18% 18%90 000 18% 16% 15% 15% 15% 15%80 000 15% 13% 13% 12% 12% 12%70 000 12% 11% 11% 10% 10% 10%60 000 10% 9% 9% 9% 8% 8%50 000 8% 8% 7% 7% 6% 6%40 000 5% 5% 4% 3% 3% 2%35 000 4% 3% 2% 1% 1% 0%

  • 8/4/2019 EN Guide against $ 1625 tuition fee hike

    36/58

    Guide Against the $1,625 Hike in Tuition FeesFdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec - 2011

    28

    In sum, this measure will not only affect the indebtedness of the student properlyspeaking, but also that of the entire family. The familial economic situation caneffectively discourage some from pursuing their studies. We should remember thatvarious factors influence participation in postsecondary studies. A literature reviewshows that in addition to the cost of studies, the life milieu of the student, the successgoing forward of the university, age, the perception of costs, the presence of dependentchildren and the distance between the family milieu and the educational institution allhave a more or less greater effect on the decision to pursue studies or not (FEUQ, 2010a;CNCS-FEUQ, 2007). In light of these factors, it is easy to conclude that the governmentcannot, in a general manner, influence the choice of the student otherwise than byfinancial means, since it has very few levers directly affecting the choice of the student.

    4.4. The student financial assistance program4.4.1.The current situation

    Although it allows hundreds of students to have access to financing to help them paythe amounts associated with the pursuit of a studies project, the student financial

    assistance program suffers from many deficiencies. In fact, the absence of a automaticindexation mechanism of the program has caused, throughout time, a lack ofcorrespondence between real costs and the allowable expenses of the program. TheAuditor General of Quebec has noted that living expenses taken into account by theprogram were among the lowest of all student financial assistance programs throughoutCanada (VGQ, 2006). Next, the obligation of parental contribution starts at a much lowerlevel in Quebec than in the rest of Canada, which has the direct effect that students fromlow-income families (about $30,000 per year) are deprived of financial assistance. Incomparison, the minimal parental threshold in the rest of Canada is $45,000 (CCAFE,2004). The maximum duration of the program is also constraining and does not allowany missteps to the bachelors student, and by supposing the rapid success in graduatestudies, while the percentage of students exceeding 16 months of studies at the mastersor 32 months of study at the doctorate is rather important (CNCS-FEUQ, 2008).

    We also note a disparity in all the living expenses taken into account in the calculation ofassistance granted. The student financial assistance program gives 758 $ per month to afull time student living on its own. In this regard, the ministre de lImmigration requiresthat international students prove their capacity to live at a level or 11 000 $ per year, or912 $ per month, which is nearly $150 more per month than expenses taken into accountby SFA. This disparity is striking, especially as the accounting parameters are the same.Do Quebecers content themselves with so little to live? Finally, various expenses such asInternet are always considered as a luxury by SFA, while they are in fact a necessity forthe success of the project of university studies (FEUQ, 2010c).

    4.4.2.The reinvestment of 118 millionsThe hike in tuition fees planned will generate additional cash inflows for the SFAprogram thanks to the transfer of 25% of the amounts paid applied by virtue of the budgetary rules of MELS. However, with the this rate, presently in force, the amountthat was transferred to financial assistance will not even suffice to cover themaintenance of the current maximum loan limits, for the recipients of loan and bursaries. The projected cost of this measure at the end of the financing plan is $85.8

  • 8/4/2019 EN Guide against $ 1625 tuition fee hike

    37/58

    Guide Against the $1,625 Hike in Tuition FeesFdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec - 2011

    29

    million. According to projection of student population, the hike will bring touniversities, in 2016-2017, $332 million and, by using the current percentage (25%) weobtain a transfer of $83 million for SFA. The shortfall for the program will thus have been $2.8 million, without even taking into account the special allowance. The realdifference will thus have been much higher.

    The increase in fees thus represents an increase in the use of the student loans andbursaries program than what the system will have been able to absorb with its currentparameters. To compensate, the portion transferred has thus been increased by 35%. Theannounced improvements of the loans and bursaries system are thus largely assumed by university students: out of $118.4 million over time, $116 million are coming fromstudent pockets. This seems quite slender in comparison to the 70 million additionaldollars that were paid annually to the government of Quebec by virtue of the CanadaStudent Grants (CSGP) and that it still refuses to invest in Student Financial Assistance.

    Furthermore, the reinvestment is brought forward one year in relation to the tuitionhike, taking effect between 2012-2013 and 2017-2018, the system will be subject to

    intense pressures during which the duration of the hike to maintain the current level ofmaximum amounts of loans, and thus indebtedness, for about one-third of students. Thelast line of Table 9 shows that the amounts transferred correspond each year to a higheramount than the increase in expenses, except the last year. Over time, the governmentwill this have collected deductions on tuition fees of $20.5 million, with the governmentonly investing the money beginning in 2017-2018. Where will this money go? Thisquestion has still not been answered.

    Table 9: Income and expenses planned by Student Financial Assistance (in millions of dollars)

    2012-2013

    2013-2014

    2014-2015

    2015-2016

    2016-2017

    2017-2018

    Total

    Amounts retained by Student

    Financial Assistance 21,0 46,0 70,0 93,0 116,0 116,0 462,0Maintenance of amounts ofmaximum loans 10,8 26,9 43,6 61,1 79,3 85,8 307,5

    Increase in the specialallowance 0,7 2,0 3,2 3,5 3,6 3,7 16,7

    Reduction of the contribution ofthe parents and the spouse 5,6 9,6 16,0 22,0 26,0 26,6 105,8

    Transportation expenses forpat-time students that arestudying in the regions

    0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,6

    Improvement of the deferredrepayment program __ 2,2 2,2 2,2 2,2 2,2 11,0

    Increase in student financial

    assistance

    17,1 40,8 65,1 88,9 111,2 118,4 441,5

    Difference in favor of thegovernment 3,9 5,2 4,9 4,1 4,8 -2,4 20,5

    Source : Un plan de financement des universits quitable et quilibr, Budget du Qubec 2011-2012, Ministre desFinances

    The study of the credits allocated to Student Financial System reveals some shockingobservations, but in the first place, a light explanation of the construction of Table 10 is

  • 8/4/2019 EN Guide against $ 1625 tuition fee hike

    38/58

    Guide Against the $1,625 Hike in Tuition FeesFdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec - 2011

    30

    necessary. The data for the year 2011-2012 are drawn from the study of credits of theGovernment of Quebec (Conseil du Trsor, 2011), Human Resources and SkillsDevelopment Canada (RHDCC, 2007, 2011) and the student part was calculated basedon the projected student population by MELS (25% of the amounts paid in tuition feesare paid to SFA) (MELS, 2011). The amounts for 2016-2017 are, of course, a projection.For the total credits, the part paid to students was weighted based on the populationprojected by MELS, and the administration expenses were increased by 2% per year. Wealso added $118.4 M of the 2011-2012 Budget. The federal part is calculated followingthe projection of the growth of transfers by the Canadian government (3% per year). Fortwo years, the provincial part has been calculated by subtracting the amoun