The Cadre, January 20, 1975, page 6‘ >
Federal University Spénding Decision To?BECMadt’W‘ithfiifi s
. ,. sauna-am “my: nwcnwtanfin1irs “1.”.— - ‘-« «mfg—wswh,
§ E i a ,
OTTAWA (CUP)---Within mo— nths, the federal cabinet will make a decision which could result in drastic tuition fee increases and fundamentally alter the way universities deal with
governments.
Plans for amendments to
the Fiscal Arrangements
Act, which indirectly pro- vides the bulk of money for university and comm— unity college operatidns, are being discussed secre etly as the government_ here announces austerity
measures and spending
' restrictions. Ominously, students appear to be taking a/
minor role in the decis— ..
ion—making process, re—
sults of which could in—V
.terfere with enrollment
levels, expansion of
programs, university au- tonomy and academic sta— ndards in every province. At the same time, unr iversity administrators, represented by the Asso-
ciation of Universities and Colleges of Canada
(AUCC), appear to be ma- king progress in selling
the idea of a "national
universities policy” and
of federally encouraged
"regional centres of
(academic) excellence".
There are also pressures— supported by the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) - for the government to cut its bro—' ad-based (and unconditional) contributions to post—' secondary education by making students pay greater tuition fees.
An extensive series of meetings of provincial, fee deral and university offic- ials begins this month to thrash out the new law, to be presented to parliament before the end of the year.
The Act:
The act they are debat— ing is a mindéboggling do- cument with intricate def- intions and complicated e- quations. It outlines a method of calculating fed— eral assistance for post— secondary educations while providing a system of tax revenue equalization among the provinces. '
Basically, the federal government offers to share 50—SC-most of the operating costs of most public and private post—secondary inst— itutions recognized by the provinces.
Funds obtained from tu- ition fees (about 15 percent
-of the total) and endowment
If accepted, this would give the federal government power over university policy formerly controlled exclus—
ively by the provinces.
are added to provincial government grants in cal— culating the matching fed— eral funding. This means provincial governments pay about 35 percent of univer—
sity and college operating costs.-
The three smallest pro— vinces, Newfoundland, Pri-
' ince Edward Island and New
,Brunswich, which don't have many post-secondary insti— tutions; take advantage of a provision in the law all- owing them to collect a flat $15 per capita annual payment. ' Last year the federal
. government paid the provi-
nces $1.2 billion for hi— gher eduCation. This year
because a 15 percent limit
‘in annual increases set in
1972 will be reached for the first time, the fiscal tr- ansfers are set at $1.67 billion. \
Not included as eligible operating costs for federal funding are costs of ancil— liary services such as re- sidences and food services, and money for_capital debt or depreciation. ‘
Not surprisingly, the provinces don't mind rece- iving the money from Ott— awa, especially since no strings are attached. The provincial governments can choose which institutions to spend their money on, and don't even have to use the money received for post—
‘secondary education.
The provincial education ministers will meet in Van— couver next week (January ' 13 and 14) to werk out their position on the re—‘
, POST-SECONDARY EDtrATIw men/mm PAYMENTS m-PRCNINCESJ' IN RESPECT OF FISCAL YEARS 1967-68 '10 1974-75
(Thousands of Dollars)‘
vised Act revisions. Next month their collective group, the Council Gf’Mini— sters of Education; comes here for a federal—provin- cial ministers meeting.
The ministers have gen; erally ranained silent about their position on the Act. It is unlikely they would support any move to cut fus nds to their treasuries.
The universities how- ever are giving the prov— inves another problem by
ioffering the federal gov-
ernment more power in ret—
.urn for increased funding.
In a brief presented to Prime Minister Trudeau January 15, the universities
‘exPressed a concern about : jthe "provincialization" of
universities, arguing, in— stead for Tcentres of ek-
,cellence."
"The general effect of federal funding by uncond— uitional transfers...hasa been a provincialization of universities to such a degree that there is little‘ assurance that national objectives will receive attention‘commensurate With their importance," the brief said. 'VT
"The reliability of Canada university stand: 1i}_ ards, a conseguence of thehf; development of 10 univeEJ 1”' sity systems...carriesx‘ ‘4 with it a danger of in-'”, sufficient diversity and inSufficient concentration of-resources to produce
province 1967—68 1968—69 1969—70 1970-71! 1971-72 1972—73 1973-74 1974-75 ’
Newfoundland 2,106 2,922, 4,041 5,905 6,347 6,219 ,5,734 5,012 Prince Edward Island 1,078 641 962 1,341 71,447 1,430 1,329 1,135 Nova Scotia 7,694 10,064 13,480 16,350 15,965 17,054 , 18,486' ‘ 19,421 New Brunswick 2,584 3,657 g (5,103 7,590 8,241 8,047 V 7,616 6,610 Quebec 64,719 75,386 ‘ 97,621 119,115 155,024 162,742 176,070 216,609 Ontario 51,310 81,911 105,014 143,409 ’160,741 161,744- 153,637 142,685 Manitoba 7,772 10,740 12,585 17,454 19,220 19,236 17,699 15,925 Saskatchewan 12,316 10,766 13,681 15,072 116,184 14,221 - 16,440 13,231 Alberta 23,914 29,808 38,693 54,069 60,793 53,745 53,370 52,515 '. British Columbia 9,015 11,286 11,878 15,464 14,701' ‘19,288 14,320 16,023 ALL PROVINCESZ 182,508 237,182 303,058 395,769 458,663 463,726 '464,701 489,166
1 For any year, the figures shown represent mon
thly advance paynents nade during the year in question as well as subsequentv
recoveries or additional payments in respect of that year. The figures are subject to revision due to changes in final
value of the federal revenue reduction
2 Individual figures may not add to total figure shown due to rounding.
,/
(V
and to final audit of eligible operating expenditures.