The National Graduate Caucus (NGC) is a separate caucus within the Canadian Federation of Students uniting the 60,000 graduate student members of the Canadian Federation of Students. The NGC is the largest graduate student organisation in Canada, and the only one with an office in Ottawa to lobby federal decision-makers.

The NGC holds three business meetings per year, has a distinct budget, and elects a Chair, Deputy Chair, and representative to the Federation's National Executive. Graduate students also join together with over one-half million students across Canada to lobby on issues of concern to all students such as student debt, tuition fees, and core funding for Canadian universities.

While all students in Canada have faced dramatic fee increases over the last decade, tuition fees for international students have become particularly burdensome in recent years. In fall 2009, average tuition fees for international students surpassed ,500—more than three times the already high fees paid by Canadian citizens. At some universities, international masters and doctoral students pay over ,000 per year in tuition fees, while those in professional programs such as medicine and law are charged a staggering ,000 per year. High differential fees are an unfair burden and a barrier to post-secondary education for international students. Ultimately, such fees could threaten Canada’s ability to attract and retain foreign scholars.

The Root Cause: Government Underfunding

International students were not charged differential tuition fees prior to the late 1970s. During the negotiations of federal transfer payments to the provinces in 1976, the federal government suggested that introducing differential tuition fees was an acceptable way for the provinces to generate additional revenue at institutions. Over the next several years many provincial governments responded by cutting or eliminating grants that had previously been provided to post-secondary institutions for the purpose of funding international students. By 1982, all provinces except British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Newfoundland were charging differential tuition fees. In Ontario, fees charged were as high as ,960.

Throughout the 1990s, tuition fees in Canada sky-rocketed for both international students and Canadian citizens as federal and provincial governments cut funding for post-secondary education. As a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, federal cash transfers to the provinces in 2008 were 50% below 1993 levels. Cash-strapped university administrators have increasingly turned to tuition fees to cover operating expenses. In 1995, tuition fees accounted for only 21% of university revenues. In recent years, that figure had risen to almost 35%.

Governments and post-secondary institutions know that high tuition fees are unpopular with students and their families. However, because international students have little direct political influence in Canada, many provincial governments and institutional decision-makers see them as an easy target. In some provinces, governments have completely deregulated fees charged to international students so that universities are free to exploit them as a replacement for government funding. Differential tuition fees have thus become an important and politically convenient way of generating revenue for many post-secondary institutions in Canada.

Differential Tuition Fees Across Canada

As shown in Table 1, tuition fees for international graduate students during the 2008-09 year vary dramatically between provinces and institutions. Overall, tuition fees for international graduate students tend to be highest at some institutions in Ontario and the Maritimes, where ten universities charged user fees of at least ,000. At less than ,000, Newfoundland and Labrador had the lowest tuition fees in Canada for international graduate students, followed by students in Saskatchewan who paid slightly more. In British Columbia, the fee differential between Canadian and international graduate students was lower than at the undergraduate level.

A similar phenomenon occurs at the University of Saskatchewan. In fall 2005, international undergraduate students at the University of Saskatchewan were saddled with a 38.4% fee increase, a un-subtle tactic used to circumvent the tuition fee freeze for domestic students in Saskatchewan. However, international graduate students were spared the hefty increase. Given the premium placed on importing great researchers, shielding international graduate students from the massive fee increase is an acknowledgement of the deterrent effects of high tuition fees.

Recently, students have successfully mobilised to defeat tuition fee increases for international students. In August 2008, the Minister of Education and the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and employment in Newfoundland and Labrador wrote a joint letter to the Board of Regents and suggested that Memorial University consult with the Canadian Federation of Students and shelve a proposed 10% fee hike. The Board agreed to stop the hike and study the issue further.

Differential Fees: Short-sighted and Unfair

Access

High tuition fees have already put post-secondary education in Canada beyond the reach of many international students. Low- and middle-income students—and particularly students from developing countries—face tremendous obstacles in accessing post-secondary education. In fact, international tuition fees in Canadian universities are usually more than the annual wage of most families in the Global South.

Continued increases could ultimately see access to Canadian universities and colleges choked off to all but the wealthiest international students and a limited number of poorer students lucky enough to receive full scholarships.

Until recently, the detrimental effects of excessive tuition fees were compounded by regulations that prevented international students from earning money while studying in Canada. However, the Canadian Federation of Students has successfully lobbied to have these restrictions eased. In April 2007, the federal government announced that international students could apply for off-campus work permits.

Some of the support for relaxing the off-campus work regulations came from university and college presidents, some of whom may see the potential for increased income as an excuse to increase tuition fees.

Diversity

International students enrich Canadian academic and social life in innumerable ways. Differential tuition fees are a threat to the intellectual, cultural, and social benefits that a diverse international student population adds to Canadian campuses. The presence of international students in this country also provides a foundation for strengthening relationships between Canada and other societies around the world.

Canada’s Immigration Needs

Charging differential tuition fees to international students is drastically out of step with the long-term needs of Canadian society. By 2011 immigration will account for all new labour force growth in Canada. According to the federal government’s own research, immigrants who have previously worked or studied in Canada have the easiest time integrating into the Canadian workforce and prospering in Canadian society. Differential tuition fees are a barrier that will discourage such talented people from studying, and eventually settling, in Canada. High tuition fees work directly against the Canadian government’s professed goal of building an educated, prosperous, and innovative society.

Canada’s International Obligations

As a wealthy country, Canada has both a duty and the material resources to provide assistance to countries and individuals in developing countries. Providing access to affordable education should be an important part of Canada’s contribution to international development.

Towards Full and Equal Access for International Students

Restoring funding for post-secondary education to the provinces would reduce the incentive for universities to rely on tuition fees as a means of generating revenue. Provincial re-regulation of differential fees for international students would also help bring skyrocketing costs under control.

In the long term, federal agencies such as Human Resources and Social Development, Industry Canada, and Citizenship and Immigration must co-ordinate with provincial governments and university administrators to develop strategies that improve access and financial support for international students wishing to study in Canada. Particular attention needs to be focused on ensuring access for international students from low-income backgrounds. Removing barriers faced by international students should be an important component of Canada’s international and foreign policy objectives. Improved access for international students would also be an important step towards ensuring Canada’s own future as a destination of choice for skilled immigrants.

Research Funding & Granting Councils

The three granting councils provide funding for graduate students in Canada, both directly through scholarships and training programmes and indirectly through funds to students' supervisors. The Caucus maintains regular communications with representatives of the three councils.

In the 2007 federal budget, the government announced an increase to the number of Canada Graduate Scholarships (CGS). Additional funding will be provided to increase the number of CGSs from 4,000 to 5,000 in the next year. Of these, 400 will be distributed through NSERC, 400 through CIHR, and only 200 through SSHRC. However, this further exacerbates the disproportionate under-funding of research in the social sciences and humanities since most of the new funding announced in the 2007 and 2008 federal budgets targeted specific research areas or commercialisation initiatives.

Submission to the Standing Committee on Finance

The Caucus prepared a submission to the Standing Committee on Finance about policy on funding graduate research in Canada in August 2007. The brief outlines policy analysis and proposals dealing with: rising graduate tuition fees and associated accessibility issues; the Federation's concerns over the continued push towards the commercialisation of research and the lack of whistleblower protection; the under-funding of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the new threats that the Council faces under the "innovation and commercialization" agenda; the need to increase the number of scholarships for graduate students and ensure that those scholarships are equitably distributed; and the need for the elimination of differential fees for international students.

The submission recommends an increase to the budgets of the federal granting agencies to support basic research with an additional asymmetrical increase to the SSHRC; to increase both the value and number of scholarships to graduate students through the granting councils supporting basic and applied research; and to extend eligibility for Canada Graduate Scholarships and granting council graduate scholarships to international students.

Whistleblowers Campaign

As research institutions have become more reliant on private sector funding, private corporations have come to influence both the direction and the reported results of research. Researchers who have been unwilling to tailor their work to the needs of private sponsors have become the targets of academic censorship and, in some cases, reprisals and public smear campaigns. Students are particularly vulnerable when trying to uphold research integrity because they lack the protection of mechanisms like collective agreements. The Caucus' Whistleblowers Campaign supports the work of those who stand up for public research by speaking out against corporate interference in research. The Caucus is also lobbying for federal whistleblower legislation to protect university researchers from reprisals when they attempt to expose research misconduct. The Caucus maintains a website (Whistleblowers) that includes background information on the issues of public/private partnerships in university research and academic freedom. The Caucus has also developed and distributed a poster encouraging graduate students to contact the Caucus if their industry sponsor has overstepped appropriate involvement in their research.

The Case of Christopher Radziminski

The Federation continues to support the efforts of former University of Toronto graduate student Christopher Radziminski in having investigations conducted into his allegations of misconduct in drinking water research. Radziminski approached the Federation in 2004 after the University of Toronto declined to investigate his complaints. Radziminski, who received a postgraduate scholarship from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) for his master's work, alleges that his two supervisors plagiarised his thesis in two journal articles without his knowledge or consent and manipulated research results. Frustrated by the University's refusal to investigate his allegations and its subsequent threat of a defamation suit when he had contacted the journals in question, Radziminski is interested in pursuing legislation to protect whistleblowers in Canada with the Federation.

Indiana University undertook a formal inquiry into Radziminski's allegations in spring 2006, and the Federation provided assistance to Radziminski during the investigative hearing in Bloomington. At the conclusion of the investigation, Indiana University confirmed that the supervisor under investigation had engaged in wrongdoing with respect to both publications. In May 2006, formal letters of apology were written to Radziminski and the other students listed as authors on the articles, including another University of Toronto graduate student. Indiana University ordered copies of the letters to be sent to both journals. The conclusion of the investigation undertaken by Indiana University confirmed Radziminski's complaints of misconduct.

The Federation and Radziminski have sought retractions from the two journals that published the articles in question: Applied & Environmental Microbiology and Water Research. On September 13, 2006, the article in Water Research was officially retracted, with an accompanying explanation from the Editor.

Judicial Review of Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Decision

In addition to the research misconduct arising from his Master's thesis, Radziminski has also made efforts to investigate the publishing of research results from an experiment testing a potential alternative disinfectant in Wiarton, Ontario's drinking water distribution system. Despite numerous complaints by Wiarton residents regarding the odour and taste of the water" all garnering national newspaper media attention "research results portrayed the experiment as "novel" and "successful", explicitly stating there were no complaints from residents. Health Canada has referenced these published results to update national drinking water quality guidelines. The Federation had requested on three separate occasions (July 2005, October 2005, April 2006) that NSERC initiate an inquiry into the Wiarton experiment based on the discrepancies between the academic reporting and evidence obtained through Freedom of Information requests. On June 15, 2006, NSERC replied again to the Federation that it had no intention of responding to the Federation's requests for a formal investigation into the allegations.

On July 26, 2006, the Federation filed an application with the Federal Court for a review of NSERC's decision. Supporting materials and an affidavit were filed with the Federal Court on October 20, 2006. Cross examination of the Federation's affidavit took place in December 2006.

A hearing was held in Federal Court on October 30, 2007, where the Federation's counsel argued that NSERC erred in interpreting their statutory obligations to respond to the complaint and that NSERC demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias by dismissing the Federation's request for an investigation.

Tuition Fees

The Campaign for the Restoration/Maintenance of the reduced fees of Post-Residency Fee systems. 'Post-residency fees' refers to a structure in which graduate students, upon completion of course work, pay reduced fees during the independent research and thesis writing stages of their degrees. Post-residency fees are known by a number of names that vary from university to university. Terms such as 'maintenance', 'continuing', 'continuance', 'post-program', 're-registration', and 'additional session' fees are synonymous with post-residency fees. Many universities in Canada have eliminated their post-residency fee systems, and others are currently in the process of doing so.

The campaign for the restoration and maintenance of post-residency fee systems was adopted by the Caucus in February 2004. In September 2004, a factsheet on post-residency fees was developed and circulated to members. A revised and updated version of the fact sheet was developed and circulated in the fall of 2005.

Central to the campaign for post-residency fees is a pledge form that has been developed for students to sign and deliver to the university's governing body. The pledge includes a commitment that, as alumni, the signatory will withhold donations to their university unless post-residency fees are restored (in cases where they have been eliminated) or unless post-residency fees are maintained (in cases where they have not yet been eliminated).

An additional poster has been developed to promote the campaign on campus. The poster asks graduate students "would you pay $XX for a library card?" where the value of $XX can be customised by Locals to reflect the increase in fees resulting from a loss of post-residency fees.

In-study Interest Relief

Student loan interest payment relief for students still enrolled is limited to between five and ten years, depending on the type of loan and the level of academic study. These limits can place graduate students and other students in protracted studies at risk of being forced into repayment before studies are completed. Further, the limits to in-study interest relief are not clearly conveyed in Canada Student Loan Program (CSLP) promotional materials. These issues have been raised at meetings with officials from the CSLP, and was raised at recent meetings of the National Advisory Committee on Student Assistance.

Commercialisation of Research

The Caucus continues to monitor national developments with regards to the commercialisation of research in Canada, particularly with regards to federal policy developments. This campaign is tied intrinsically to both the Whistleblowers Campaign and the Caucus' efforts to increase research funding that does not require industry involvement or a commercialisation orientation.

Public Risk, Private Gain: An introduction to the commercialisation of university research

The Caucus has recently produced a research document (Public Risk, Private Gain) which is an introduction to the commercialisation of university research. The document provides an overview of the history of research funding in Canada, including commercialisation initiatives, analysis of the harmful effects of commercialisation on universities, and proposals to protect research in the public interest.

Federal Science and Technology Strategy

The Science and Technology Strategy was revealed by the federal government in May 2007. The strategy highlighted a number of ways by which commercialisation initiatives could be promoted in Canadian universities. The strategy aims to strengthen the relationships between public universities and private industry and facilitate commercially driven research at the graduate student level. This will be accomplished through the creation of research centres and adjusting the governance and role of the granting councils to further the commercialisation agenda.

The key recommendations that relate to research in post-secondary education institutions include directing public resources and research in targeted areas that will promote market driven research. Priority areas may include environmental science and technologies, natural resources and energy, health and related life sciences and technologies, and information and communications technologies; Increasing the transfer of knowledge and technologies from universities, research hospitals, and government laboratories to the private sector; realigning the granting councils to focus more on commercially oriented research; setting up the Centres of Excellence in Commercialization and Research program and creating new business-led research networks under the Networks of Centres of Excellence Program. Eight large-scale centres will be created to undertake research in areas where Canada has the potential to be a "global leader".

The Caucus continues to monitor the implementation and impact of the Strategy on campuses and on public research.

Overview

In 2000 the federal government commenced a formal review of Canada’s Copyright Act, primarily for the purpose of addressing the impact of digital technology on access to information.

Since then, the content production, publishing and software industries have exerted significant pressure on the federal government to pass legislation that significantly restricts access to copyrighted materials. In particular, the Canadian Recording Industry Association has argued that the Act needs to be amended to impose major restrictions on file sharing to protect the artists’ interests. This position is not supported by many Canadian musicians who are concerned that such restrictions would criminalise their fans and ignore the rights of the Canadian public.

More restrictive access would have significant and far-reaching implications for public education in Canada. Restrictive amendments would negatively affect education by imposing new fees on educational institutions and infringing on privacy and user rights that currently exist.

What is the Copyright Act?

Canada’s Copyright Act was created to encourage the development of artistic literary and authorial works, such as books, music, and software by providing certain rights to authors over how their works are used. One of the most important of these is the right to control the replication of a work. Copyright also protects the “moral rights” of creators by prohibiting users from defacing their works.

At the same time, the Act ensures the public the rights to access and use copyrighted works. The Act provides rights for users, including limited rights to make copies without permission through exceptions, including “fair dealing”. As such, a core principle of copyright is that knowledge must be shared to encourage creativity.

The Act strives to strike a balance between the interests of owners and users of copyrighted material.  A 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling confirmed that the purpose of the Copyright Act is to serve the public interest by encouraging both the creation and use of works.

Current Context: Responding to the Digital Revolution

The Internet has increased democratic engagement on a global scale, by providing citizens access to information from government, non governmental-organisations, scholars, educational institutions, and individuals. Students, researchers, artists, and instructors increasingly use online media to gather, store, and share information, and audio and visual works.

As publishing and entertainment companies amalgamate into more powerful corporations, the copyright debate has shifted towards the profitability of the content industry. These corporations have been heavily invested in creating the perception of the Internet as a commercial space that should be regulated as such. The campaign led by the publishing and entertainment industry has resulted in a strong focus in draft legislation on developing law to manage music file sharing that would have the effect of restricting many other uses of the Internet.

The Main Issues

Fair Dealing

The existing Copyright Act includes a “fair dealing” provision that allows for single copies to be made of portions of works for narrow categories of use, including for “research and private study”.

Although Canada’s fair dealing provision recognises the need to make copyrighted works available to encourage reasonable access for educational purposes, it is inferior to those of many other nations with more extensive provisions for educational use. Unlike the American “fair use” clause, the Canadian provision does not even include the right to make multiple reproductions of a work for classroom use.

TPMs and DRM : Restricting access and users’ rights

Technological Protection Measures (TPMs) and Digital Rights Management (DRM) are methods of encrypting digital media to restrict access to it, either by preventing it from being copied or limiting its availability.

A TPM acts as a digital lock. By restricting access to digital works, they prevent fair dealing. For example, even though fair dealing allows for the use of quotations of works, TPMs would restrict students from using digital quotes in a Powerpoint presentation or other multi-media project.

TPMs also threaten privacy rights by giving the copyright owner the ability to monitor all uses of their works by installing spyware on a user’s computer.

In January 2007, electronics corporate giant Sony was forced to settle a legal case in the United States after using a copy-protection TPM on CDs, that installed a “rootkit”—a software program on an individual’s computer used to monitor internet usage. In addition to infringing the users privacy, the computer on which it was secretly installed became more susceptible to viruses and hacking. Sony was liable for damages for using the rootkit and agreed to restrict the use of TPMs in the future. The case illustrates the need for the Canadian government to place severe restrictions on the use of TPMs.

Internet Licensing

Educational institutions are already paying millions of dollars in copyright licensing fees each year. Internet licensing would impose additional costs, and likely force Internet service providers to monitor Internet use. Since almost all content that is on the Internet is there because it has been made “publicly available”, imposing new fees could require universities and colleges to pay for materials that were intended to be shared freely.

New and complicated exceptions for Internet licensing have been proposed as an alternative for educational institutions; however, expanding rights for users through fair dealing would be the most straightforward way to protect the rights of users.

Internet Service Provider Liability

An amended Copyright Act will likely clarify the role of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in monitoring online activities.

The “notice and takedown” model, used in the USA, requires ISPs to police Internet users and allows ISPs to remove selected content and in some cases even entire websites when they receive notice of alleged infringement. This model has proved problematic. Thousands of websites have been taken down on the basis of unproven accusations that they contained content that violated copyright law. It has also been used as a tool in the USA to impinge on free speech and facilitate censorship. For example, the Church of Scientology has instigated the removal of web sites critical of its activities.

In Europe, a “notice and notice” monitoring system, under which the ISP would merely notify clients suspected of infringing activities and request that they voluntarily remove material in question, is more commonly utilized.

Statuatory Damages

If a person is found liable for copyright infringement, the owner of the infringed work is entitled to “actual” or “statutory” damages. Actual damages are based either on the actual losses suffered by the owner, or the gains obtained by the infringer. Statutory damages, on the other hand, are pre-determined amounts, set out in legislation that can result in substantially larger payments for each infringement.

Because of their punitive nature, that ignores the intent behind the works use, statutory damages can intimidate users, preventing them from exercising their legitimate rights to use copyrighted works.

The Big Picture

Copyright is intended to protect the rights of creators without stifling the use of works. Access to materials is imperative for students, scholars, researchers, artists, and the general public, but the current Copyright Act does not do enough to define reasonable access for educational use of digital materials. Instead of taking measures to ensure reasonable access to digital materials, the federal government appears poised to restrict access to public materials with new amendments to the Copyright Act. Extending “fair dealing” to match the USA’s interpretation would significantly improve access to documents for educational purposes.

An overly restrictive Copyright Act, as advocated by the recording and publishing industry, is bad public policy. All creators build on the past work of others. Overly restrictive copyright protections smother the development of new ideas, thereby discouraging social, cultural, and economic growth.

Further Information

Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic: www.cippic.ca Digital Copyright Forum: www.digital-copyright.ca Faircopyright.ca: www.faircopyright.ca

Endnotes

1. Law Society of Upper Canada v. CCH Limited, [2004] S.C.J. No.12, (2004) 236 D.L.R (4th) 395.

The National Graduate Caucus has the following objectives: advocating for the interests of graduate students nationally and internationally; providing a forum for discussion of issues of concern to graduate students; and representing the concerns of graduate students within the Canadian Federation of Students. Working together for these objectives has led to a record of success. Working Together Works

2005

Campaigning by the Canadian Federation of Students’ has led to tuition fee freezes or reductions in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Qu?c, and Newfoundland & Labrador.

Ongoing lobby efforts of the Federation contributed to a federal budget amendment to allocate $1.5 billion for tuition fee reductions.

The research community, including the National Graduate Caucus, successfully lobbied for increased federal funding for the Tri-Councils (SSHRC, NSERC and CIHR).

Following a long campaign by the Federation, the federal government relaxes regulations that prohibit international students from working off-campus and extends international students’ post-graduation labour market access.

2003

After years of lobbying by the Canadian Federation of Students, the federal government restored SSHRC (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council) and CIHR (Canadian Institutes of Health Research) scholarships for masters' students in the humanities and social sciences through the Canadian Graduate Scholarships.

2002

A one-time allotment of $225 million is invested by the federal government towards the indirect costs of research.

2000

The Canadian Federation of Students successfully lobbied the National Library of Canada to halt an arrangement with the American internet company Contentville.com, under which Canadian graduate students' theses were being sold for-profit without regard for authors' knowledge.

After pressure from the Canadian Federation of Students, the federal government belatedly recognizes deficiencies with the Millennium Scholarships and elevates the tax exemption on all scholarships from $500 to $3000.