CCL Home > Newsroom > Speeches
In its first annual national report on post-secondary education, the Canadian Council on Learning set out to answer a question that is fundamental to our individual and collective futures: to what extent does Canada’s post-secondary education and training sector contribute to Canadian’s social and economic objectives?
Report resources
It is remarkable that this question has never before been posed in a comprehensive national report on PSE. We found that even though post-secondary education in Canada has had a positive record, its future is uncertain. It is uncertain largely because we have failed to articulate the specific goals that we wish Canada to achieve through its investments in PSE and to measure that achievement in ways that are clear and objective. It is reasonable to enquire: how can we spend annually $29 billion of public funds and billions more of private money and not possess robust answers to this basic question?
If Canada is serious about improving educational outcomes—to stimulate economic growth, increase Canada’s international competitiveness and support strong communities, it must develop appropriate tools for this task.
I would like today to set out some of the clear conclusions of CCL’s report to Canadians, and to invite everyone to read the full appraisal.
First: Post-secondary education is not just about students in university or college. In a knowledge society, PSE must touch all Canadians’ lives in different ways—from workplace learning to college technical skills, to adult literacy, to a university lab.
Secondly, Canadians can be proud of their post-secondary educators and institutions. Problems in Canadian PSE that suggest an uncertain future are not due to the quality and commitment of our educators. Shortcomings in Canadian PSE are systemic, due to lack of coherence, consistency, and coordination. These challenges are difficult to overcome.
Third, when we scratch below the surface of high participation rates and attainment of our young people in university and college; when we examine issues that affect prosperity and support strong communities, there is reason for concern. We note mismatches between labour market needs and our capacity to fill them, whether through apprenticeships in the skilled trades or through training of engineers and scientists, who drive innovation.
We observe that Canada’s performance in research and development—another driver of productivity and wealth-creation – is insufficiently competitive.
Access and benefits of PSE are unequally distributed among Canadians. Nine million Canadian adults lack the literacy skills needed in modern society—this despite our high levels of participation of young people in PSE.
One and a half million Canadians have unmet job-related adult education and training needs. The needs of adult learners for more flexible, affordable, and responsive methods of accessing PSE are not adequately met.
And Canada lacks mechanisms to ensure coherence, coordination, and comparability for PSE—issues being addressed in most other developed countries. Particularly interesting in this regard is the United States. By any measure American universities dominate the world’s top 100 ranking. Yet, a Commission appointed by the federal cabinet in that country, whose productivity and per capita GDP are much higher than those of Canada, has recently concluded that, without a national strategy for PSE, the U.S. will fall behind economically. Is there any reason for complacency in this country?
Let me mention some of the issues which CCL does not take up in this report. We do not rank the performance of universities, colleges, or provinces. We do not recommend roles and responsibilities for various levels of government, the private sector, institutions, and individual learners in moving Canada forward. We believe that the right approach for a national strategy for PSE is voluntarist, collaborative, and cooperative, involving all those partners.
We believe also that the jurisdictional context of education in Canada should be no barrier to planning, goal-setting and progress. Indeed, individual provinces are far more likely to achieve their objectives with a national framework than without. Why? Because workers, capital, students, professionals, even institutions are now mobile. Education is national and international, as well as local. Issues of quality, of access, transfer of credits, recognition of prior learning, health care human resource planning, research, development and innovation—to name but a few—are all areas that cannot adequately be addressed in a fragmented manner. They require a national plan.
CCL’s first report on PSE in Canada is replete with examples from other countries and supra-national bodies like the European Union. These examples show that federal states like Australia or the U.S. can develop national strategies. They underline how independent countries like members of the EU can, with political will to do so, achieve common goals, benchmarks, and targets. Those societies that set the conditions for success will be those that prosper—economically, socially, and educationally. Those that hide their heads in jurisdictional sands will fall behind, at great cost to all their citizenry.
From the nation-wide perspective that is the mission of CCL, the view of next steps for PSE can be simply stated.
Canada needs goals: where do we, as a society, want to go? Canada must articulate a set of explicit, well-defined objectives for PSE, cast in terms of specifically what should be achieved through PSE to maximize the overall well-being of Canada and of Canadians
Canada needs a strategy: how do we get there? Canada must develop mechanisms at the national level to provide coordination and cohesion. Through these mechanisms, we can increase access and mobility, harmonize assessment of effectiveness to improve outcomes – while respecting provincial responsibilities and institutional academic autonomy.
Canada needs ways to assess progress: how will we know when we get there? Canada must develop a clear set of indicators and measures to determine whether those goals and objectives are being achieved. This requires the development of a consistent, comprehensive, and comparable set of measures and data. These data must be collected in a manner that enables monitoring of change over time as well as comparison with other countries.
In closing, please consider the following: it is no surprise that so many organizations have stood up to applaud CCL for delivering this first national report on PSE and for calling for a national focus and strategy—organizations ranging from governments to business groups, labour groups, think tanks, PSE institutions and their associations. Like all those who clamoured for creation of CCL in the first place, these organizations represent the views of millions of Canadians—Canadians who know that our success depends on a knowledge society, Canadians who want us to work together to create the conditions for that success. I believe that Canadians insist merely that their institutions, governments and the PSE sector create those conditions. Individual Canadians and their communities will do the rest.
Thank you!
Top