University Funding in Quebec –
Briefing Paper
February 8th, 2013
Post-Graduate Students’ Society (PGSS) of McGill University
The Post-Graduate Students’ Society of McGill University (PGSS) is a non-partisan society that
offers support, advocacy, and event services for over 8,000 graduate students and post-doctoral
fellows at McGill University.
Post-Graduate Students’ Society of McGill University
Thomson House
3650 McTavish
Montreal, QC
H3A 1Y2
http://pgss.mcgill.ca
Tel.: (514) 398-3756
All rights reserved – PGSS 2013
1
Glossary
AUCC Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada
CAUBO Canadian Association of University Business Officers/ACPAU l’Association canadienne
du personnel administratif universitaire
CIP Classification of Instruction Program
CEGEP Collège d'enseignement général et professionnel
CPI Consumer Price Index
CRÉPUQ Conférence des recteurs et des principaux des universités du Québec
CCAFE Comité consultatif sur l’accessibilité financière aux études
CMEC Council of Ministers of Education, Canada
CNCS-FEUQ Conseil national des cycles supérieurs de la FEUQ
CSE Conseil supérieur de l’éducation
EPF Established programs financing
FTE Full-time equivalents
FEUQ Fédération étudiante universitaire du Québec
FQPPU Fédération québécoise des professeures et professeurs d’universités
GDP Gross domestic product
HEC École des Hautes études commerciales
IRIS Institut de recherche et d’informations socio-économiques
LFS Labour Force Survey
MIF Mandatory institutional fees
MELS Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport
MFQ Ministère des Finances du Québec
OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
PQ Parti Québécois
PSIS Post-Secondary Information System
PGSS The Post-Graduate Students' Society of McGill University
UdeM L’Université de Montréal
UQAM L'Université du Québec à Montréal
R&D Research and development
SFA Student Financial Assistance
GERD Gross domestic expenditures on research and development
2
University Funding in Quebec – Briefing Paper
Executive Summary
The former Parti libéral du Québec (PLQ) Government’s plan to increase tuition led to a divisive
debate on students’ contribution to higher education. This resulted in the strike of spring 2012
which culminated in the election of a minority Parti Québécois (PQ) government in September
2012. The new government cancelled the proposed tuition increase and will be hosting a
provincial summit on higher education in February 2013.
This paper reviews a number of reports on university funding in Quebec1. These reports all
contain certain assumptions, different types of data and strengths and weaknesses in their
methodological approach. There is no definitive analysis confirming that universities are
underfunded or sufficiently funded, every study has their flaws and lacunae.
The underfunding argument is based primarily on a comparison of operating revenues between
Quebec and the other provinces undertaken by the Conférence des recteurs et des principaux
des universités du Québec (CREPUQ). The methodological approach attempts to take account
of the structural differences between Quebec and the other provinces. This analysis highlights
differences in operating funding between Quebec and the Canadian average. While this is
helpful in terms putting Quebec in a Canadian context, the comparison alone is the sole
justification for further funding. The argument is not supported by an assessment of the needs
within the system or linked to outcomes such as a lower student/professor ratio. The reports
with the exception of the former PLQ government’s plan fail to describe how the extra funding
will be allocated.
The other side of the debate argues that universities are sufficiently funded. They focus on
spending not funding figures using global figures, operating budget spending plus research and
capital allowances to support their argument. The argument is made that underfunding is not
based on an analysis of universities needs but on the Canadian average, critics also dismiss as
fundamentally flawed, the idea that higher costs ensures higher quality. (IRIS, 2011) It is
suggested that there is considerable mismanagement within the university system in areas such
as higher management and administration salaries, advertising and the creation of secondary
campuses. Fédération étudiante universitaire du Québec (FEUQ) call for the auditor general of
Quebec to review funding to provide an accurate picture of the financial position of Quebec
universities.
The ongoing debate on funding needs to focus on the university revenue not spending. This is
the best indication of sustainable funding levels. The university system is running an annual
deficit, creating an accumulated operating deficit of $483.4m in 2008/09. This results in a
considerable amount of expenditure on interest payments, $1,168 per student or 6.4% of
operating expenditure in 2008/09. This is almost $1,000 more per student than in Ontario.
(Demers, 2011). When the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) were applied in
2009/10, this reassessment put the accumulated operating deficit at $2,142m in 2010/11.
(Tremblay, 2013). The Quebec university system needs to put on a more financially sustainable
footing. This cannot be achieved without some increase in funding. The fundamental flaw in the
analysis to-date is the lack of vision for the future of higher education in Quebec. One hopes
that the forthcoming summit will provide a forum to create a consensus on a tangible vision for
the future of Quebec’s universities.
1
A number of stakeholders gave presentations on university financing as part of the pre summit preparatory meeting on governance
and university finances, links to these contributions are contained in Appendix 1
3
Background
The Quebec government is hosting a provincial summit on higher education in February 2013.
The Government has highlighted four themes in preparation for the summit;




Quality of higher education
Access and participation in higher education
Governance and funding of universities
Contribution of institutions and research to the development of the province.
This briefing paper on university funding will help inform and encourage debate at PGSS and
help develop PGSS’s position at the provincial summit.
Introduction
The debates surrounding the funding of university education have been divisive with different
sides taking opposing views. CREPUQ and the former PLQ government have continually
argued that universities are underfunded. FEUQ have argued that the universities are
sufficiently funded and universities need to be managed more effectively and efficiently. This
paper aims to explore the different positions adopted by stakeholders by reviewing the reports
supporting their positions. The analysis will critically examine each report in the following areas:



Underlining assumptions/hypothesis of research
Data and metrics used to quantify funding
Benefits/limitations of data analysis
4
Parti libéral du Québec (PLQ) Government Plan
The former PLQ government proposed to increase funding to universities by an additional
$850m by 2016/17. This involved a tuition fee increase of $1625 over five years (2012/13-201617) which aimed to raise $265m net along with $430m from Government, $101m from other
revenue sources such as research contracts and $54m from donations. The plan uses data
contained in the report, Document d’appui à la réflexion, Rencontre des partenaires en
éducation to support their proposals.
Underlining assumptions/hypothesis of research
Universities are underfunded
The PLQ government plan assumes that there is a need for additional funding for universities
projecting this figure to be $850m by 2016/2017. This is broadly in line with figures from
CREPEQ below taking account of inflation. The principle of ‘fairness’ is used to support their
plan. They argue that the increased contributions in their plan are fairly distributed amongst all
parties, government, students, individuals/businesses and the universities. They argue that
$320m is required to maintain core funding based on inflation and projected student numbers
along with $530m in additional ‘excellence funding’.
Greater contribution required from students
The proposed tuition fee increase would raise the student contribution to overall funding from
12.7% to 16.9%. This contribution was 26.4% in 1964-1965. The government’s proportion of
funding would drop from 54% to 51.4%. The net student contribution to the university funding
plan was estimated to be $265 million in 2016-2017. This contribution represented 31% of the
additional revenue transferred to universities in the plan.
Data and metrics used to quantify funding
Tuition fees
In terms of the tuition portion of the increase in funding, the figures are based on increasing
tuition levels to the Canadian average, the equivalent of tuition fees in the academic year
1968/69 in real terms. These figures are based on the work of Lacroix and Trahan 2010. The
increase in tuition to the Canadian average was a position also adopted by CREPUQ in 2010.
The Finance Minister at the time also liked the symbolism of the year 1969, given that the
network of the University of Quebec was created in that year and the first year of uniform tuition
fees across the province.
Operating deficit
The analysis admits that overall university spending per student is higher in Quebec than the
Canadian average. It argues that this is not a fair representation as operating expenditure was
$18,162 in 2008/09 in Quebec, below the rest of Canada at $19,931. They argue that the
operating budget is the most relevant measure as this funding goes directly towards the
provision of education. The plan highlights that Quebec universities have been running a deficit
since 2005 and the accumulated deficit was $483m in 2009.
5
Benefits/limitations of data analysis
Links funding to resource allocation and quality
The plan links new funding to resource allocation in the university system. This is through
partnership agreements with universities. These agreements provide a break down of
additional revenue allocation;



65% to 85% to be allocated to the quality of teaching and research;
10% to 20% to support the competitive positioning of universities in Canada/abroad;
5% to 15% to improve administration and management by enabling all universities
This report is the only tangible attempt to outline how extra revenue will be allocated to the
university system. The ring fencing of budgets through agreements could help prevent waste
within the system and ensure the vast majority of funding is dedicated to teaching and research.
It is also conscious of the differing needs of universities, some universities such as McGill put a
greater emphasis on international competitiveness while smaller regional universities may focus
on the economic needs of their region.
The Document d’appui à la réflexion, Rencontre des partenaires en éducation from December
2010 when addressing this issue focused on the performance of universities and three pertinent
questions;



What commitments must universities take on for the use of the additional income?
In terms of accountability, what forms of reporting of public accounts should be in place
to ensure commitments on the use of additional income?
What should be put in place to ensure the co-ordination of all partners to ensure Quebec
universities meet international standards?
The ideas from this discussion failed to be incorporated sufficiently into the plan. The plan
touches on the issues raised but fails to deal with these important questions.
Comparison with other Canadian provinces
The report highlights that the figures for underfunding are very sensitive to the methods used to
compare funding levels in Quebec to the rest of Canada. If fails to engage in the debate but
concludes that annual deficits do occur each year in Quebec and these deficits are not at the
same level in other Canadian provinces.
Choice of comparators for year
The report uses the reference year 1968 to help justify the tuition increase. Tuition fees in 1968
were at their highest level in real terms in the period 1968-2012. This is mainly because of the
freeze between 1968 and 1990. The report also fails to mention the frais institutionnels
obligatoires or mandatory institutional fees which has increased significantly since the early
1990s, and were $624 on average in Quebec in 2010/11 (FEUQ, 2011b), ranging from $156 a
year at the Institut national de la recherche scientifique (INRS) to $1061 at Concordia in
2010/11 (Statistics Canada, 2012).
6
Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport (MELS) Financial Investment
in Universities in 2008-2009: Comparison between Québec and the Other
Canadian Provinces, Bulletin 40.
A study undertaken by MELS on the financial investment in universities attempts to factor in
both the cost of living and structural differences when comparing Quebec with the rest of
Canada. The report adjusts university expenditure figures to reflect these factors. It found that
expenditure per student in Quebec is roughly equal to that of the rest of Canada average.
(Demers, 2011:9).
Underlining assumptions/hypothesis of research
The primary research question is; how does Québec’s financial investment in its universities
compare with that of the other Canadian provinces? The aim of the report is to try and answer
this using a number of different metrics and in consideration of the differences in higher
education systems and economic realities of the province.
Data and metrics used to quantify funding
The report uses data from MELS Education Indicators 2011, Statistics Canada and the
Canadian Association of University Business Officers (CAUBO). This is the same data used by
the former PLQ government plan above. The figures used in the comparison focus on the global
figures for revenue and expenditure including research and capital. Table 1 below breaks down
both revenue and expenditure into three categories; operating budget, research and capital.
Table 1: Global revenue and expenditure of universities per student 2008/09 (in dollars)
Source: MELS (2010) Rencontre des partenaires en education Document d’appui à la réflexion, L’avenir des
universités et leur contribution au développement du Québec 6 décembre 2010. MELS: Québec p23
7
Benefits/limitations of data analysis
Use of total spending/Inclusion of research funding and capital allowances
When it comes to providing the most accurate indication of underfunding, using the funding
figures is the most appropriate measure. The analysis uses global spending figures including
resources for two areas that arguably are not directly impacting students and their learning
experience; these are research funding and capital allowances. Given the stipulations from
funding bodies that research funding must be solely used for research purposes and that the
capital budgets are required to fund infrastructure to deal with increasing student numbers,
50,000 or 30.6% in the past decade (Zizian, 2012). This makes it hard to justify their inclusion
when making comparisons.
Evidence from the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) suggests that a
considerable majority of indirect costs of research are funded by universities with the federal
government’s share slightly over 23% (MELS, 2010: 34). The Government of Quebec estimate
that the federal underfunding of indirect research costs represents a shortfall of approximately
$90 million for 2007-2008 (MELS, 2010: 34). The report provides a very helpful overview of
spending per student in Quebec but fails to break this down into the three categories highlighted
in table 1.
Methodology used to weight student numbers is unclear
When making inter province comparisons the structural differences in the student body need to
be taken into consideration. The report highlights two forms, duration and the cost of education.
In Québec, a diploma of college studies in pre-university education is the usual requirement for
admission to a university, whereas in the other provinces, a secondary school diploma is
generally sufficient. Furthermore, in some provinces in Western Canada (especially Alberta and
British Columbia), students can do their first two years of university in a college, and then finish
their program at a university. College-level education is less costly, but at the same time, perstudent spending in the universities is higher (since the last years of university education are
more costly).
In terms of cost, certain disciplines are more costly to fund that others, programs such as
medicine and dentistry have a far greater overall cost that humanities based programs and
graduate education is more costly than undergraduate. Quebec for example has a greater
proportion of graduate students than other provinces. (CREPUQ, 2010:12). The report adjusts
spending to take account of the structural factors of duration and cost. The methodology applied
to account for the structural differences is not outlined. CREPUQ (CREPUQ, 2010:12) in their
report (see below) outline in detail the weightings applied to the full time equivalents (FTEs) to
take account of these structural differences.
Cost of living adjustment methodology
The cost of living in Quebec is lower than most other provinces. International organizations such
as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) overcome the
challenge of differing standards of living when making international comparison by using
purchasing power parity (PPP) indices for countries. They convert the amounts spend in the
currencies of the countries and convert this to US dollars using PPP. This equalizes the
purchasing power of different currencies which eliminate differences in price levels between
countries.
This report applies a similar approach internally to Canada to equalize differences in the cost of
living between provinces. There are no such official indices for the provinces so the report used
8
a simplified method to approximate provincial PPP indices. These indices were developed by la
Ministère des Finances du Québec and preliminary data have been produced using them. The
results should be treated cautiously as this is an approximate measure and has not been
verified. The methodology has not been outlined and there is no reference to these indices in
other official reports.
On a more general point, the use of PPP should be treated cautiously when analyzing specific
education spending such as university expenditure. Generally, the prices used in the
classification of PPP indices, ’should refer to a selection of products chosen from a common
basket of precisely-defined goods and services’2. This basket of goods and services does not
have particular relevance to the university expenditure broken down in this report. This
breakdown is helpful in terms of explaining expenditure. There is often little or no price in many
areas of expenditure such as academic ranks, research, along with travel and library expenses.
This is due to national and international competition for academic staff and the similar pricing for
library resources and travel across Canada. It must also be noted that income tax is higher in
Quebec so it can be difficult to make arguments about cost of living in Quebec when the same
gross salary can result in less take home pay in Quebec.
Deficit largely attributed to salary increases
In terms of comparing revenue with expenditure, the report uses three factors to explain the
deficit in Quebec universities, salary increases, pension plan deficits and indirect research
costs. The report only addresses the salary increase aspect which it argues, ‘would largely
explain the deficit position of Québec’s universities at the present time’. The report notes that
grants provided to universities are based on the government’s salary policy for public service
employees, any salary increases not contained in government’s policy must be met from other
areas of university budgets. It argues that increases in salaries above the government’s
allocation are the primary reason for the deficit in university funding.
A ‘rough’ comparison is made between the increases in salaries of university professors and
teachers in school boards and Collèges d'enseignement général et professionnel (CEGEPs)
over a 25 year period from 1981 to 2006. The gap between the salaries of school teachers and
university professors went from 56% to 78% and from 38% to 62% for CEGEP teachers. This is
not unique to the university or education sector. The changing wage structure across all sectors
has seen those with incomes in the higher wage brackets receive greater increases that those
at the lower middle of income over the last 25 years. If one looks at data from Statistics Canada
that the report uses to highlight higher wages in universities in Quebec compared to Ontario,
there have been greater percentage increases in salaries of all employees in CEGEP and
secondary schools than in universities overall in the period from 1991 to 2008 in Quebec.3
While this is overall staff and does not specifically apply to teachers, it still gives an indication of
the overall trend. Overall, there is 2.8% difference in salaries between Canada and Quebec in
terms of all university employment in 2008.
The report then goes on to state that overall government salaries were 10.2% behind the
university sector in all comparable employment categories. It also mentions that salaries in
Quebec were higher in the university sector than in Ontario. It is not clear what the comparable
2
OECD/Eurostat (2005) PPP methodological manual Paris: OECD p4 available at
http://www.oecd.org/std/pricesandpurchasingpowerparitiesppp/37984305.pdf
3 Statistics Canada North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a01?lang=eng Table 281-0027
9
Quebec government employment categories are used when comparing university personnel. As
the global statistics for all university and provincial government employees do not bear out this
finding. It also must be noted that government employees tend to have more secure permanent
types of contracts and generally better pension entitlements. One can argue that university
employees received a premium to reflect this. Overall, any thorough benchmarking of wage
differentials needs to consider all of these factors when comparing wage rates in an economy.
10
CREPEQ: The financing of Quebec Universities compared to the universities
in other Canadian provinces 2000/01-2007/084
Underlining assumptions/hypothesis of research
CREPUQ argue that universities in Quebec are underfunded. They base this assessment on a
comparison of Quebec funding per weighted student with the Canadian average. Their figures
show that there is a funding gap of $621m between Quebec and the Canadian average in the
academic year 2007/08.
Data and metrics used to quantify funding
This figure is based on a gross gap of $791m (see table 2). The $621 figure is made up of
tuition $788m minus provincial grants of $85m and the addition of other income of $94m with
deduction of $176m representing additional amounts of student financial assistance paid by
universities in other provinces (see table 4 below). This gives a final net funding gap of $621m
to achieve parity with the Canadian average funding levels per weighted student. The measure
used is full time equivalent (FTE) weighted student to reflect structural difference in education
systems between provinces as noted in MELS report above.
It should be noted that these calculations excludes the following funds;




Auxiliary enterprises
Endowment funds
Research funding
Capital allowance funds
Table 2: Gross gap in weighted full time equivalents (FTEs) funding
Year
2007-2008
Weighted student funding
Quebec ($)
Other
Provinces ($)
10,689
13,245
Income
($)
2,557
gap Weighted
($)
311,756
FTE Gap Weighted
FTE($M)
797.1
Table 3: Funding Gap 2002/03
2002/03
Tuition
Provincial grants
Other income
Funding Gap
Revenue ($M)
625
Deductions ($M)
294
35
367
4
CREPUQ have recently published an updated version of this report with data from 2003/04 to 2009/10, it is available here
http://www.crepuq.qc.ca/IMG/pdf/Etude_CREPUQ_2013_Niveau_Ressources_2013-01-15.pdf
11
Table 4: Funding Gap 2007/08
2007/08
Tuition
Provincial grants
Other income
Financial assistance
Funding gap
Revenue ($M)
788
Deductions ($M)
85
94
176
621
Operating budgets, capital expenditure and research revenues
In 2008-2009, global operating revenue per weighted student in Quebec reached $17,454 per
student, compared to $19,688 in the rest of Canada. In terms of sponsored research and capital
investment, Quebec faired better than the Canadian average with $7,723 and $2,451 per
student, compared to $6,605 and $1,989 in the rest of Canada. The later two figures are not
included in the comparison. (See table 1)
Benefits/limitations of data analysis
Selective use of revenue comparison
CREPUQ have decided to use only operating revenue and special purpose and trust income
when making comparisons with the rest of Canada. It fails to provide a significant reason for the
exclusion of research and capital funding besides mentioning the indirect costs of research
funding and that research funding is restricted to a specific activity. This results in comparing
revenues whose proportion of the overall budget is smaller in Quebec (60.6%) than the rest of
Canada (63.4%), if research grants were included these figures would be 87.9% and 84.9%
respectively. CREPUQ, 2010:10). See table 5 below.
Table 5: Revenue of member universities of CAUBO 2007/08 in 1,000s of dollars
Source: CREPUQ (2010) Le financement des universités québécoises comparé à celui des autres provinces
canadiennes.
http://www.crepuq.qc.ca/IMG/pdf/Financement-Univ-QC-_compare-univ-autres_provinces_20002001_2007-2008__2010-11-17_2_.pdf p10
Weighting formulation from 2002
The weightings applied for disciplines and levels of study in the report were applied to the
previous version of the study published in 2002. Two points need to be made regarding this.
The information in the 2002 gird (see table 6 below) is based upon data from 1995/96.
(CREPUQ, 2002:9). The distribution across disciplines and the cost of programs relative to one
another can change considerably in the intervening 12 years. This was not mentioned in the
report. University members of the committee involved in the authorship of the original 2002
12
report had reservations about the methodology applied. They argued for the weighting
coefficients to be 1, 2.5 and 3.5 to reflect the relative costs between disciplines instead of 1, 1.5
and 2.5 which is the approach applied.
Table 6: The weightings for discipline and level of studies
Source: CREPUQ (2010) Le financement des universités québécoises comparé à celui des autres provinces
canadiennes.
http://www.crepuq.qc.ca/IMG/pdf/Financement-Univ-QC-_compare-univ-autres_provinces_20002001_2007-2008__2010-11-17_2_.pdf p12
No link to outcomes
There is no link between the alleged funding gap and the resources needed to adequately fund
an internationally recognized quality university system in Quebec. Even taking account of the
structural differences between Quebec and the other provinces, the approach is rather simplistic
with no justification besides the direct comparison and without any reference to outcomes and
the impact on the quality of education.
Failure to adjust for PPP
The report uses the MELS grid (table 6) to adjust weighting amongst the student body to reflect
the structural differences in the higher education system in Quebec but it does not make any
adjustments for PPP. It is recognized by all that that the cost of living in Quebec is below other
provinces in Canada. This was not taken into consideration. The argument is made by
CREPUQ that universities are competing for the same human and technological resources and
this justifies the absence of inclusion in the comparison.
13
CIRANO Le sous-financement des universités québécoises et une
proposition for reinvestissement
Underlining assumptions/hypothesis of research
The chronic underfunding of teaching and research at Quebec universities has dramatic
consequences for the quality of educational institutions and the future competitiveness of the
economy. They argue that tuition fees should be increased and that more funding should be
available to increase Quebec’s proportion of Canadian research and development (R&D)
expenditure to 1995/96 levels.
Data and metrics used to quantify funding
The report uses Quebec’s proportion of overall Canadian R&D expenditure. It also proposes an
increase in tuition fees in a similar manner to the approach outlined by the former PLQ
government above. This is to bring the Quebec tuition up to the Canadian average. In this case,
the proposed increase was over three years, which would result in a similar overall figure of one
billion in extra revenues for Quebec universities. The proposed student contribution to university
funding was 30% in line with the PLQ’s plan.
Benefits/limitations of data analysis
The proportion of Canadian R&D expenditure is a very crude measure to base funding
requirements of a university system. It fails to take account of the spending per weighted
student which it can be argued gives a better indication of performance. The research grant
revenue per student above gives a more representative figure. The overall proportion of R&D
does not take account of changes in graduate student numbers and their research fields (some
areas being more R&D related than others) or changes federal and provincial funding.
In terms of the tuition increase, the same reservations about the PLQ plan apply.
14
Council on University Planning and Analysis/Council of Ontario Universities
- Interprovincial Comparison of University Revenue
Underlining assumptions/hypothesis of research
The main aim of the working paper is to compare the amount of funding that institutions in each
province receive, on average. They argue that funding per student in Ontario is below the
Canadian average. The report also highlights the relatively poor funding levels of Quebec
universities compared to other provinces.
The report ranks the provinces according to their general operating funding which is divided into
three categories; provincial grants, grants plus tuition and grants plus tuition minus scholarships.
Quebec ranks 7th when taking just provincial grants, then drops to 10th under the other two
indicators. See table 7 below.
Table 7: Ranking of Provinces under 3 categories of General Operating Fund
Data and metrics used to quantify funding
The report uses a similar approach to CREPUQ. Key data sources for the project are the PostSecondary Information System (PSIS) from Statistics Canada for enrolment and the Canadian
Association of University Business Officers (CAUBO) financial report for revenue. The report
takes enrolment data from the 2008/09 fall term and converts this to FTEs. Classifications of
Instruction Program (CIP) codes from Stat Can are used to give weighting to reflect enrolment
by discipline.
15
In this instance the report decided to focus on a model which they argue reflects core operating
funding;



provincial grants, net of health-related funding;
tuition revenue after subtracting expenditures on scholarships and student financial aid;
BIU (basic income unit) weighted enrolments, with diplomas and degrees blended (i.e.,
apply respective BIU weights where possible, but assign the same weight when a BIU
weight is missing from one of the credentials).
The report simply divides revenue by FTE to provide figures for per student spending. It involves
dividing the measure(s) for revenue (numerator) by the measure(s) for enrolment (denominator)
for a set of universities and then aggregating the results to the provincial level.
Benefits/limitations of data analysis
The report is very mindful of the differences between provinces particular Quebec given the
shorter length of time of undergraduate courses and the different proportions of disciplines. It
outlines how it deals with each of the following differences;






PSE structure –colleges, university-colleges
in ‘program mix’
undergraduate / graduate ‘mix’
in proportions of domestic / international enrolment
funding policies/practices
tuition and student assistance policies
It cleverly provides a number of scenarios taking account of different funding types and
measures of student enrolment while outlining the scenarios and the rationale behind them.
The report highlights some of the methodological shortcomings. The most obvious of which is
the attempt to factor in the ‘first year students effect’ in some scenarios by applying an Ontario
weighting matrix that only includes upper year students. In theory, such an adjustment would
increase the number of ‘weighted units’ and reduce funding per unit. Applied to Quebec,
however, the result was an increase in weighted units by just over 2%, which intuitively seems
much too low. The report noted that the mix of disciplines in Quebec by Classification of
Instruction Program (CIP) codes includes a lower proportion of enrolments in humanities and
physical and life sciences than in Ontario— disciplines that would be impacted upon by the
weight adjustment. Quebec also has a higher proportion of enrolments in undergraduate
education and business than Ontario as well as a higher proportion of graduate students—
disciplines and an entire level that would be unaffected by the weight adjustment. It points out
that the findings are inconclusive and the approach to quantify the funding situation of different
post secondary education structures such as Quebec and Ontario requires further analysis.
16
The Institut de recherche et d’informations socio-économiques (IRIS) 8
arguments against the tuition hike
Underlining assumptions/hypothesis of research
This report argues that the ‘debates’ taking place fail to address the question, what is the
purpose of education? The focus has primarily been on who will pay. The primary assumption is
that there is no need to increase tuition. They argue that the analysis on the funding gap does
not take account of need. Funding is not being managed effectively with too much revenue
going towards management and not enough on teachers.
Data and metrics used to quantify funding
The report uses university expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP). In
2008/09, overall university spending represented 1.94 % of Quebec’s GDP, compared to 1.76 %
in Ontario and 1.58 % in Canada as a whole (excluding Quebec). They use the global
expenditure figures contained in table 1. The report analyses the proportion of universities
budgets allocated to different types of staff and the percentage change in these allocations.
There is also a comparison of the increase in the number of professors and FTEs. Between
1997 and 2005, the percentage of Quebec university payroll expenditures attributed to
administrative staff rose by 2%, whereas the proportion allotted to professors fell by 4.4%. The
percentage of payroll expenditures going to managers and administrators increased by 83.2 %
between 1997 and 2004.
Benefits/limitations of data analysis
In terms of expenditure as a percentage of GDP, there are a number of factors that have been
used to explain the difference of 0.36% between Quebec and the rest of Canada. This analysis
fails to take account of the following variables, total per-student spending, collective wealth
(defined as the per capita GDP), participation rate and the demographic factor. The GDP alone
is 23% lower in Quebec compared to the other provinces, some have attributed 0.47% to this
variable alone. (MELS, 2010). It also fails to take account of the older population of Quebec with
fewer young people.
The data on the proportion of teachers to other staff, does not deal with the fundamental issue
that is the funding. It may highlight how current expenditure is deemed inappropriate or
misdirected with the system. It is not stated that if the number of managers and administrative
staff were reduced and the proportion of payroll was reverted to earlier levels what savings this
would create in the system. The information in this report on staffing is derived from La
Fédération québécoise des professeures et professeurs d'université (FQPPU) which represents
university professors.
17
IRIS Les revenus des universities selon la Conférence des recteurs
Underlining assumptions/hypothesis of research
There is no underfunding in the university system. The figures must take account of total
revenues and not just operating revenue. The research intensive universities have a monopoly
on public research funding allocated to Quebec universities. The weighted nature of government
grants together with public research funding has distorted the budgets within the university
system and disproportionately favors certain areas of study.
Data and metrics used to quantify funding
The revenues of the universities are presented under 5 headings; operating revenue, research
grants, other revenue, total revenue and number of full time equivalents. This is then broken
down by full time equivalents FTEs i.e. operating revenue per FTE, research revenue per FTE
etc. There is also a breakdown of the weighting of students based on discipline and a
breakdown of the research budgets by graduate numbers in particular sectors comparing
medicine, science and technology with humanities.
Benefits/limitations of data analysis
Use of total spending
The same reservations highlighted above in relation to the use of total spending apply to this
report.
Overly simplistic analysis of research funding.
While the data does highlight the disproportion allocation of research funding both across
universities (McGill, Laval and L’Université de Montréal get 76% of public research funding) and
disciplines (90% of research funds are allocated to health, science and technology which make
up 33% of graduates and 29% of students). The report does not accept and utilize the weighting
formula used by MELS which weights funding by students, discipline and level. This is standard
practice given that costs for teaching and research are higher for certain disciplines such as
those in health science in technology compares to the humanities. Graduate students are also
more costly and this is taken into account when MELS allocate teaching grants.
One must admit that both the weighting and the research grants result in much higher levels of
funding for health, science and technology. These sectors are dominating funding but it not
clear if the report favors a redistribution of budgets to other areas or a reduction in this funding
altogether. That is a question that left for another day, as the author notes, ‘Now that the debate
is open, ……………………….what exactly is the nature of poverty that afflicts?’.
18
FEUQ Guide against the $1625 hike
Underlining assumptions/hypothesis of research
The argument is put forward that Quebec universities are not underfunded and that when the
total expenditure is used Quebec compares favorably to the Canadian average.
Data and metrics used to quantify funding
They use the same overall revenue figures contained in Table 1 above.
Benefits/Limitations of methodological approaches to data analysis
Failure of CREPUQ to outline vision for university sector
The report highlights CREPUQ’s lack of vision for the university sector. FEUQ argue that
CREPUQ has not clarified where the extra revenue in their plan will be invested and what
proportion will be for operating budgets, teaching and research. The basis of CREPUQ’s
argument is not what the university sector needs but based on the Canadian average of
operational funding. This in FEUQ’s view does not serve as a solid foundation to build an
argument. The question arises, how do we know if the other provinces are spending efficiently
and effectively. They also argue that Quebec is distinctive and cannot be compared easily to
other provinces.
Use of total spending
The same reservations highlighted above in relation to the use of total spending.
Claims of mismanagement not substantiated
In terms of the claims of mismanagement, there is no systematic presentation of data on waste
or inefficiencies within the university system besides some anecdotal evidence and a number of
high profile real estate projects.
19
FEUQ Cutting in the fat: University budgets
Underlining assumptions/hypothesis of research
This report argues that there are considerable levels of savings to be made in the university
system particularly at the higher levels of management. These savings ($296.2m) could raise
significant revenue similar to the level of student contribution outlined in the former PLQ
government’s plan without a need to increase tuition. The report does not explicitly deal with the
issue of ‘underfunding’.
Data and metrics used to quantify funding
The data on budget lines are drawn from the Canadian Association of University Business
Officers (CAUBO). It is argued that if a freeze was imposed on a number of areas (not directly
related to research and teaching) for five years this would result in savings of $289m.
The data on the senior management wages are drawn from the reports submitted by
universities during the hearings of the Commission of Culture and Education that took place in
August 2010. They believe a reduction of rector’s salaries to those of the University of Quebec
system average would result in savings of $6.9m
Benefits/Limitations of methodological approaches to data analysis
Highlights the high remuneration at senior management level
The report highlights the growing budgets in areas not directly related to the primary role of
university in teaching and research. These include contractual service, materials and supplies
professional fees, travel expenses, other salaries and wages. While this is helpful one could
argue that many of these administrative areas outside of teaching and research include support
services for students such as; counselling and health services, access offices and language
support.
The salaries of upper management employees in the university system show large disparities
between universities. The overall proportion of the operating budget spent on management is
also questioned. They propose to cap university rectors’ salaries at the University of Quebec
system average of $170,000. This fails to acknowledge the different roles and responsibilities of
the position of rector in the different universities. The skills and experience required for certain
positions in universities is reflected in their remuneration packages of their employees. This is
particularly true for those who seek to recruit internationally and compete with the best
universities in the world for these positions.
Misinterpretation of McGill data
The total figure for management expenditure for McGill reflects the university’s longstanding
practice of including in these categories its professional employees and all other non-unionized
employees who have supervisory functions. McGill point out that this approach is not used by
the other universities and thus the comparison is not valid.
McGill has since changed the way in which it accounts for their management personnel, putting
them on the same basis as the other Quebec universities. As a result, the most recent figures
transmitted to the government of Quebec (for the year 2010-2011) show a management payroll
at McGill of $47.72 million.
20
Conclusion
This paper reviews a number of the different reports on university funding in Quebec. These
reports all contain certain assumptions, different forms of data and strengths and weaknesses in
their methodological approach. There is no definitive analysis confirming that universities are
underfunded or sufficiently funded, every study has their flaws and lacunae. The ongoing
debate on funding needs to focus on the university funding not spending. This is the best
indication of sustainable funding levels. The university system is running an annual deficit,
creating an accumulated operating deficit of $483.4m in 2008/09. This results in a considerable
amount of expenditure on interest payments, $1,168 per student or 6.4% of operating
expenditure in 2008/09. This is almost $1,000 more per student than in Ontario. (Demers,
2011). When the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) were applied in 2009/10,
this reassessment put the accumulated operating deficit figure at $2,142m in 2010/11.
(Tremblay, 2013). The Quebec university system needs to put on a more financially sustainable
footing. This cannot be achieved without some increase in funding. The fundamental flaw in the
analysis to-date is the lack of vision for the future of higher education in Quebec. One hopes
that the forthcoming summit will provide a forum to create a consensus on a tangible vision for
the future of Quebec’s universities.
21
References
Conférence des recteurs et des principaux des universités du Québec (2010). Déclaration de la
CREPUQ
sur
le
financement
des
universités,
l’accessibilité
aux
études
universitaires,l’assurance-qualité et la reddition de comptes, available at
http://www.crepuq.qc.ca/IMG/pdf/RPE_Declaration_version_finale_26NOV2010-revise.pdf.
CREPUQ (2010) Le financement des universités québécoises comparé à celui des autres
provinces canadiennes, available at http://www.crepuq.qc.ca/IMG/pdf/Financement-Univ-QC_compare-univ-autres_provinces_2000-2001_2007-2008__2010-11-17_2_.pdf.
Demers, Marius (2011) Financial Investment in Universities in 2008-2009: Comparison Between
Québec and the Other Canadian Provinces. Quebec: MELS.
Demers, Marius (2008) Financial Investment in Universities in 2006-2007: Comparison Between
Québec and the Other Canadian Provinces. Quebec: MELS.
Dyke, Nathalie, Umbriaco, Michel et Sabourin, Cécile (2008) Financement des universités.
Investir dans le corps professoral, Montreal: FQPPU.
FEUQ (2011) Guide Against the $1,625 Hike in Tuition Fees. Montreal: FEUQ
FEUQ (2011b) Avis sur l’encadrement des frais institutionnels obligatoires. Montreal: FEUQ.
FEUQ (2012) Cutting the fat: Guide to university budgets. Montreal: FEUQ.
Gagné, Gilles (2011) Institut de recherché et d’informations socio-économiques Notes de
recherché Les revenus des universities selon la Conférence des recteurs. Montreal: IRIS.
Government of Quebec (2011) “A Fair and Balanced University Funding Plan To Give Québec
the Means To Fulfil Its Ambitions,” 2011–2012 Budget, Quebec: MELS
IRÉC (2012) La hausse des droits de scolarité et ses impacts sur le coût de programme.
Montréal: IRÉC
IRIS (2011) Faut-il vraiment augmenter les frais de scolarité? Montréal: IRIS
Lacroix, Robert, et Michel Trahan (2007). Le Québec et les droits de scolarité universitaire,
Montréal, CIRANO, available at http://www.cirano.qc.ca/pdf/publication/2007RB-01.pdf.
Lacroix, Robert, et Trahan, Michel (2007). Le sous-financement des universités québécoises et
une proposition for reinvestissement Montréal: CIRANO.
Martin, Eric and Ouellet, Maxime (2010) Rapport de recherché La gouvernance des universités
dans l’économie du savoir, IRIS: Montreal.
MELS (2012) Calculs definitifs des subventions de fonctionnement aus universities Année
universitaire 2011-2012, Québec: MELS
MELS (2011) Indicateurs de l’éducation 2011, Québec: MELS
22
MELS (2010) Rencontre des partenaires en education Document d’appui à la réflexion, L’avenir
des universités et leur contribution au développement du Québec 6 décembre 2010. Québec:
MELS.
Statistics Canada (2012), Survey of Tuition and Living Accommodation Costs for full-time
Students at Canadian Degree-granting Institutions, table 6: additional fees for full-time graduate
Canadian students, 2010-2011 actual, Ottawa: Human Resources and Skills Development
Tremblay, Hélène P. (2013) Le financement des universités Rencontre thématique sur la
gouvernance et le financement des universités, Sherbrooke, 17 et 18 janvier 2013 available
here
http://www.mesrst.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/administration/librairies/documents/documents_gouvern
ance_financement/EXP_HELENE_TREMBLAY_presentation_troisieme_rencontre_thematique.
pdf
Zizian, Daniel (2012). ‘Financement universitaire - Pour une démonstration rigoureuse du sousfinancement’ Le Devoir, 30 octobre 2012 available at
http://www.ledevoir.com/societe/education/362672/pour-une-demonstration-rigoureuse-du-sousfinancement
23
Appendix 1: Presentations on University Financing, Preparatory Pre-Summit Meeting on
Governance and University Financing, Sherbrooke, January 17 and 18, 2013
Confédération des syndicats nationaux (2013) Pour une gouvernance en collégialité et un
financement public adéquat des universities, Rencontre thématique sur la gouvernance et le
financement des universités, Sherbrooke, 17 et 18 janvier 2013 available at
http://www.mesrst.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/administration/librairies/documents/documents_gouvern
ance_financement/CONTR_CSN_presentation_troisieme_rencontre_thematique.pdf
Conseil du patronat du Québec (2013) Gouvernance et financement des universités : Être les
meilleurs! Rencontre thématique sur la gouvernance et le financement des universités,
Sherbrooke, 17 et 18 janvier 2013 available at
http://www.mesrst.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/administration/librairies/documents/documents_gouvern
ance_financement/CONTR_CPQ_presentation_troisieme_rencontre_thematique.pdf
CREPEQ (2013) Les universités : notre avenir à tous, Rencontre thématique sur la
gouvernance et le financement des universités, Sherbrooke, 17 et 18 janvier 2013 available at
http://www.mesrst.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/administration/librairies/documents/documents_gouvern
ance_financement/CONTR_CREPUQ_presentation_troisieme_rencontre_thematique.pdf
Fédération étudiante universitaire du Québec (FEUQ) (2013) Gouvernance et financement des
universités (PDF) Rencontre thématique sur la gouvernance et le financement des universités,
Sherbrooke, 17 et 18 janvier 2013 available at
http://www.mesrst.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/administration/librairies/documents/documents_gouvern
ance_financement/CONTR_FEUQ_presentation_troisieme_rencontre_thematique.pdf
Fédération québécoise des professeures et professeurs d'université (FQPPU) (2013) Avis de la
FQPPU sur le financement et la gouvernance universitaires Rencontre thématique sur la
gouvernance et le financement des universités, Sherbrooke, 17 et 18 janvier 2013 available at
http://www.mesrst.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/administration/librairies/documents/documents_gouvern
ance_financement/CONTR_FQPPU_presentation_troisieme_rencontre_thematique.pdf
Noreau, Pierre (2013) Synthèse de la rencontre thématique – La gouvernance et le financement
des universities, Rencontre thématique sur la gouvernance et le financement des universités,
Sherbrooke, 17 et 18 janvier 2013 available at
http://www.mesrst.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/administration/librairies/documents/documents_gouvern
ance_financement/GRAND_TEMOIN_synthese_troisieme_rencontre_thematique.pdf
Table de concertation étudiante du Québec (TaCEQ) (2013) Fonds des Services de Santé et
d'Éducation Postsecondaire, Rencontre thématique sur la gouvernance et le financement des
universités, Sherbrooke, 17 et 18 janvier 2013 available at
http://www.mesrst.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/administration/librairies/documents/documents_gouvern
ance_financement/CONTR_TaCEQ_presentation_troisieme_rencontre_thematique.pdf
Tremblay, Hélène P. (2013) Le financement des universities, Rencontre thématique sur la
gouvernance et le financement des universités, Sherbrooke, 17 et 18 janvier 2013 available at
http://www.mesrst.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/administration/librairies/documents/documents_gouvern
ance_financement/EXP_HELENE_TREMBLAY_presentation_troisieme_rencontre_thematique.
pdf
24