WHEREAS Canada’s economy of the future needs highly educated and skilled individuals to remain competitive on a global scale;
WHEREAS students need greater financial support to complete increasingly expensive programs;
WHEREAS there is a need for increased incentives for students to apply their education to the Canadian workforce;
BE IT RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada urges the government of Canada to offer current and future students opportunities to access education at any point in their career, including trades; payment of first and last year tuition for undergraduates; and a work forgiveness program which would allow students to pay off their loans in exchange for work in designated communities, industries, and public initiatives.
Liberal Party of Canada (Alberta)
About time to add some “keep ‘em at home” (working in Canada) criteria to our educational funding requirements…
Whole heartly agree with this, as long as there are tough rules. Not fond of people using the system only to skip out when its their turn to pay up.
Drop the payment of the first year (keep the last). I think students need to have a personal stake in their first year (of undergrad) to take it seriously. I also like the previous posters idea of including ideas to prevent brain drain for post graduate students. I think that setting the policy that first year of post graduate studies is paid, providing that the student agrees to work in Canada for 5 years would be a great idea.
I’m not sure I agree with putting in lots of rules to prevent people from leaving Canada after graduating. Firstly, on the whole Canada does a lot more importing of educated talent than exporting of it, so it would be rather hypocritical. Secondly, many (probably most) folks who do go off after their educations eventually return. The knowledge, experience and contacts they obtain while overseas is a great asset to this country and not something to be discouraged.
I’d like to comment briefly on the anti-brain drain comments that have been posted. From a scientific research perspective, it is nearly essential to train for a few years in the USA after the completion of your PhD. The sheer magnitude of research funding and resources in the US is not even comparable to Canada, and working in that environment provides valuable experience to researchers. The vast majority of Canadians who train in the US desire to return to Canada, but are often limited by the number of academic research positions available.
Agree and long overdue. However, this resolution speaks only to current and future students. Recently-graduated students are carrying enormous student debts; which in turn limit their participation in the economy as consumers. Many are unable to fund big ticket purchases like housing, cars, etc. So loan forgiveness of some kind (say, interest, or a % of loan etc) for recent graduates (up to 5 years)should be considered. I realize this probably belongs in the “economy” sections.
Drink Deeply of the Pierian Spring before you Rush in Here,
A Little Learning is a Dangerous Thing, Tread where the Way is Clear.
This issue, once introduced into the political debate, may well be a determining issue at the polls. I believe that post-secondary education must be universally affordable, as do all taxpayers. It is important to get it right. The taxpayers are extremely good judges of the cost benefit of the education programs. They are educated. They have children they want educated. They know the importance of education to Canadas economy. To ensure that education is affordable, the Taxpayers are willing to pay for a program with effective cost benefit
It is important to get this right. I suggest the Liberal Party study what has worked in other nations.
Tuition is set by the provinces, and it is provincial responsibility to ensure it is affordable. The federal government should not enter into it.
As to forgiving a portion of student loans, there should not be a work exchange program attached to this. The work exchange will not reduce the cost of the program, and the taxpayers are going to look at the Bottom Line. Moreover, the list of objections taxpayers may have to the work exchange is lengthy …
… the taxpayers have no assurance that the designated work is worth their taxpayer dollars,
… the work exchange might be viewed as subsidy to select employers,
… many may consider it comprising of personal freedom for the government to have any say in the graduates choice of work,
… for some graduates, particularly those with families, the work exchange may not be fair in consideration of the other demands on them.
The student loan program worked adequately when I was at University. But relative costs and earnings have changed since then; therefore, forgiving a portion of student loans is warranted. My thoughts of what the taxpayers will consider appropriate are as follows:
… Forgive a portion of the student loan for the First Year, based on courses completed. If the student decides not to continue, so be it (the student learned that much.)
… Forgive a portion of the the loans for following years, to a maximum, provided the student finishes the degree or diploma.
… if a student cannot finish the diploma or degree, for medical reasons or bereavement leading to exceptional obligations, forgive a portion of the loans based on ability to pay.
I do not know what portion of the loans might be deemed forgivable. I think less than 20% would be sufficient to provide students with the assistance required. (My generation managed student loans, and relative costs and incomes have not changed more than 20% since I was a student.)
Be careful. This is a game changer. (I would not torture an essay on criticism for less.)
I’m not keen on the idea of just paying two years of tuition for every student. The fact is while many students need the help, many don’t. If the pool of $ we have to dedicate to this is finite (and it is), I’d rather see us help more students in financial need a lot than help all students whether they need help or not just a little.
Frankly, though, a better comprehensive approach would be dedicated federal/provincial transfers for post secondary, contingent on caps on tuition increases. That, and targeted financial aid, would be a good approach.
It is out of question that the post-secondary education system needs a major overhaul. Explicitly it does not meet the job market demand and this disconnect only deepens over the last years. The framework should be established that consider all influencing factors, such as systemic changes in the job demand, new industries rising and declining of occupations in the mature phase, as well as continuous inflow of the job applicants in excess of those who leave the job market due to demographic, social and immigration impacts. I strongly support establishing mechanisms to “access education at any point in their career”. In the meantime, an idea of work forgiveness program is contentious and needs further elaboration. Without proper oversight mechanisms it could transform into a wide arena for various manipulations.
High school education is not enough any more. Education is the answer to what ails our economy. It is the way to keep the economy moving and to preserve the all important middle class. We need to concentrate on day care and headstart to get that learning foundation. We need to set the tone that if the student has the grades and keeps those grades up, they get to go. The federal policy does not have to get involved in the tuition cost but setting up a return of service incentive program that allows all our bright kids the future we who are boomers mostly got, but in the process, we need to make sure ALL Canadian children get a good learning foundation and that may need to be in the form of encouragement at the federal level.
GOOD CHILDCARE. THEN, IF YOU HAVE THE GRADES, YOU GET TO GO.
Our fastest growing population segments are the poorest. We have to capitalize on these children. They are our future. They will thrive if we make learning popular and the “in” choice. That, the federal government can do. It has to be “cool” to be bright and educated.
Godd childcare. And, if you have the grades you get to go.
This resolution first needs to address the needs of the first nations and aboriginal communities in Canada.
E.Nyborg
I feel strongly that educated Canadians are essential for the future well-being of the country. I am concerned that this plan interfers with federal/provincial responsibilities.
I do agree that students should not be held back by financial problems, and beginning work life with large debts is not the way anyone should begin working life. Could grants or bursuries be granted to individuals so the provinces would not be involved? Or the individual educational administrations could administer the grants.
Work experience is what many students need. Opportunities for employment during vacation breaks and that initial job opportunity are critical. Funding to support those job opportunities would allow the young people an opportunity to earn their way to success in a given field. (I have found that when you are using your own hard earned dollars results in more motivation to perform well.)
This reinforces the education passport. We need to get this correct.
This resolution has good intentions but has the focus all wrong. There is no noticeable correlation between barriers to access to education and high tuition rates, even if that does seem pretty intuitive. Case in point, Ontario has the highest average tuition rate but also the highest percentage of low income bracket students participating. The government doesn’t have to bankrupt itself, education is something that pays for itself. If it negotiates with the provinces for conditional increased education transfers in exchange for certain rules for lending programs (such as preventing OSAP from charging rates the Mafia wouldn’t charge once a student has missed a payment), that will accomplish everything we want without giving away money no strings attached.
The other major problem as I see it is exorbitant drop-out rates. Think of all the money governments could redirect towards students who, if they didn’t have to work so many hours, could excel at whatever they are doing, if so much money wasn’t spent on students who were in the wrong program or at the wrong institution to begin with. That’s something only the provincial governments can work on however. It starts by better preparing students in high school and putting a greater focus on self-knowledge.
Anyway, resolutions like this are counter-productive because they operate under the assumption that a lack of funds is the main problem in post secondary education (not to say that it isn’t a problem just to say that throwing money in a pit won’t help).
As a student, I find it necessary that the government invests more into bursaries and grants for students. Searching for entrance scholarships are easy, however it is scholarships while in university that are difficult to get. Lets face it, grades slip and your coveted 90% in high school becomes a B+ average in university. There needs to be some sort of scholarship to reward students who are getting higher expectations in university. From my experience class averages range in the C area, so why not give students who get B’s $500 dollars for their effort. This $500 will help either pay for tuition or books, or just help students live. In all likelihood students will pay for groceries or clothes, which means the money that was invested into hard work, goes back into the economy and strengthens it. Too often students, who work their butts off, get good results but not good enough for scholarships already put into place.
Having graduated from University some 20 years ago, I can’t imagine what its like to manage the resulting debt loan of today’s students. I do know a dear friend of my niece committed suicide rather than deal with his. I one that believe the current status quo is not acceptable.
I agree with many who commented that access is not necessarily the issue. Though costs have risen dramatically, the behaviours of young students hasn’t. If you want to go to university or school, you go into debt and worry about it after you graduate. I believe some relief is needed, but attitudes need to change too. I don’t think you can deal with one issue and not the other.
It’s in Canada’s best interest to have a highly education workforce that is not indentured by debt. I support providing relief to students that remain in Canada, but personally I prefer a system that is universal. Why complicate the situation.
Pingback: