Finance Committee on Oct. 4th, 2006

[Dr. Indira Samarasekera]

You've touched on a really important issue. There is an enormous, and I think an almost excessive, focus on tuition cost, as opposed to affordability. I think one of the challenges we have is that we are keeping our tuitions relatively low compared to most countries. In some respects, that's costing us in quality, and also we are not taking advantage of the potential for some people to pay and translating this into scholarships and bursaries for others who cannot afford it. The real opportunity for us as a country is to create some scholarships and go after the low-income, underrepresented groups—the aboriginals. There's a huge opportunity here in Alberta and across this country. I think we have to shift the debate. So that's the first thing: affordability.

Secondly, you know the debt hasn't been going up exponentially. The average debt of a Canadian student coming out of post-secondary is about $20,000, if I have the numbers right. Many of them do pay the debt off in a relatively reasonable period of time. The real issue is not the tuition; it's the actual cost of going to school and giving up work.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I agree with that. I don't think the issue is tuition. It's certainly not as simple as tuition.

[Dr. Indira Samarasekera]

No.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

And we have to take direct measures to make sure that Canadians who aren't going to university now get to university.

On the front page, you mentioned that the University of Alberta has a lofty goal to be among the top twenty public research universities in the world by 2020. Who measures that? Secondly, I assume there are no Canadian universities there now.

[Dr. Indira Samarasekera]

No.

I think there are a variety of measures. Generally, the universities in the top twenty in the world have some very clear attributes, and that is that they are destinations for everybody. Faculty want to go there, the best students want to go there, and the best researchers from around the world want to go there. I think if you're near the top twenty, you know, because people are beating a path to your door. For me, that would be the metric, and I don't think any Canadian university has that kind of attraction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

You have a very brief time.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Okay.

We heard earlier from the community college in Fort McMurray. It seems one of the other keys to the future of education in Canada is working closely between universities and community colleges. Does U of A do that?

[Dr. Indira Samarasekera]

Yes. In fact, we have a very strong relationship with Keyano College; we're offering joint degrees. U of A degrees can be received right here, and we're doing this right across the province. We have MOUs with close to twenty colleges where we are offering degrees. It's a very exciting model and again one that accesses the underrepresented and non-traditional students to get into post secondary.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you, Mr. Savage.

Certainly one of the concerns that a number of the committee members share is access to post-secondary education and training for rural and isolated family members and students. You've mentioned tuition as a relatively minor cost, certainly a far lower percentage of the cost for someone who comes from a rural community than for someone who can live and have accommodation within the community where the training is offered. Do you have any specific ideas or suggestions for the committee on how we might address the inequality with respect to those barriers?

[Dr. Indira Samarasekera]

I have two comments. Of course, one is to continue to ensure that resources are in place to allow major universities like ours to offer degrees in those communities, because one way to keep people there is not to relocate them in the first place. Many would much rather receive a degree from the University of Alberta at Fort McMurray than to have to move to Edmonton. That's the first measure. And those programs are more expensive for the student than actually relocating them on a campus in Edmonton. The costs of delivering a program in Fort McMurray would be marginally higher, because you're dealing with a smaller volume.

The second issue is there are some students who would benefit from and want to go to Edmonton. For those students, we should have preferential grants covering some of their costs and some scholarships associated with the fact that they are from outside the region. This is where it comes back to an affordability program that addresses those specific challenges for students who are not necessarily from the urban areas.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you. And involving the private sector and individuals outside of government in that second suggestion is something I am a proponent of. I'm a member of our Brandon University Foundation and have established a personal fund specifically for that purpose, and I encourage others to do the same.

I have a second question on the rents. I got some information here a minute ago from, I understand, a town councillor, saying the average wage here is over $90,000. The average rent for a one-bedroom apartment is around $2,000. Nod if that's in the ballpark.

[Mike Allen]

It's a little bit high on the rent, but it is certainly very high.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Okay. Also, he said that the federal government will receive $60 billion in oil revenues if oil prices continue where they are over the next twenty years--$60 billion! It's almost an unbelievable amount

But we have to concern ourselves a little bit with the short-term challenge issues communities are facing and others.

On the issue of your retail rents, obviously it's a supply and demand issue. I assume you have an incredible demand for space; therefore, the price is naturally going to rise. This is the free market working here, right?

[Mike Allen]

Absolutely. I think one of the challenges, and this is not a federal issue but rather a provincial one, is that everything surrounding Fort McMurray--and I've had many people from across Canada say, “I can't believe you keep talking about a shortage of land, because everywhere we look there's land”--is owned by the Crown, and there are issues around the release of land.

Currently, with the growing population the focus is on providing residential properties, and we understand that. What we're looking for is some form of focus on getting commercial and industrial development going as well and diversification of the businesses in the community, because otherwise we turn into an industry town.

With the retail sector and the service sector, the challenges with staffing are related directly to housing costs and the competitive wage nature. So how does this hotel in fact compete when they have 100% turnover of staff? For small businesses, myself included, where many people in the community are from Edmonton, Calgary, and Toronto, they expect competitive pricing when overhead costs are in fact almost double. That's--

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

But my point, and I want you to address it, is this. Is not some of this a natural consequence of the lag between, say, housing starts, commercial development, and so on, following the increased interest in the community? We'll put it that way.

[Mike Allen]

Absolutely. We're looking to catch up, essentially, and that catch-up mode is starting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Okay. So how does this committee in its recommendations address the catch-up challenge you're talking about, or is it largely a provincial matter of jurisdiction?

[Mike Allen]

We say it's largely provincial. Certainly, there is some federal assistance, and that's when we approached the tripartite-type agreement. The focus we're working on primarily with the provincial government right now is on the funding formulas. And I believe you would have heard it from both the mayor and from the CEO of the hospital: all the funding that comes forward from the public side is based on a formula that is the same for every other community in the province and/or Canada.

With the rapid growth that's happening here, what we're suggesting is that as a business, for example, I would invest my capital where I'm going to get my best return. Any investment in that infrastructure right now in this region, or any other high-growth region, such as Grande Prairie or Cold Lake, in the energy sector will certainly pay off for the rest of the country in the long run.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

I now give the floor to Mr. St-Cyr.

You have four minutes, sir.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Thank you.

I would like to say a few words about Mrs. Smith's brief.

Even if I basically disagree with what you say in you brief, I must admit that it has the advantage of being very upfront about what you want. Some of the groups that appeared before us have tried to hide behind the so-called right of women to choose when in claiming that women should stay at home. The government itself has used this argument. You, however, are very upfront about this. I believe that your historical perspective, at the beginning of your presentation, was very enlightening. It fits in very well with what some people are saying here.

That being said, I have to admit that I am a bit uncomfortable with the idea of penalizing people who do not use a given social program. Even though I have been lucky enough not to have to be hospitalized over the past few years, I have still paid willingly all my taxes. People who do not use childcare services because they don't need them are not penalized. By definition, a social program means that one uses the resources of the collectivity to meet the needs of some people. However, if we collect money from everybody and redistribute that money to everybody, it's useless because it's a zero-sum game. If that's what we want, we might as well eliminate all taxation and let everybody do what they want with their money.

There's also an important contradiction in your brief, which I want to explore with you. At the beginning, you state that money is not the be-all and end-all, that it isn't important. At the end, however, you try to convince us that we should fund people who stay at home to care for their children. It's as if you said that money is not important but, please, give me some. That is somewhat contradictory and devalues voluntary activities. When people do something voluntarily, they don't expect to be paid for it, they don't ask for money in exchange.

As far as you're concerned, is money important? If it's not, why should we implement your recommendations? If it is, if money is important, why should government fund a very expensive program aimed at pulling millions of women from the labor market? Why should government, in doing that, deprive itself of all that tax revenue?

[Beverley Smith]

It's a good question.

First, my aim is not to ensure that women stay at home but only to recognize those who choose to do so. I have four daughters but they don't live at home now. One is a lawyer. She has a job and she leaves her two children in a childcare center for a few days. I have nothing against childcare centers.

However, if my daughter chose to stay at home, she would not get any financial benefits, even if she took care of her children's education on her own. I believe that the problem you raise about childcare centers is the one that we've raised also, and that is that children who use childcare centers receive some education services whereas those who don't use them don't receive those services. Personally, I have taken care of my children's education at home. I have used the same programs, which is not your case: you give them to one group but not to the other.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

So, you think that you should have been paid because you were providing the same services?

[Beverley Smith]

No. You should have paid me because I was providing the same services that you pay for when they are provided in a childcare center. I was a care giver, not a care seller.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

In the end, your approach is very...