While there may not yet be light at the end of the tunnel for Canada’s debt-addled students and their families, a campaign-time policy shift in the Conservative platform suggests post-secondary education can become a key issue for progressive voices.

Despite alarming long-term consequences for Canadian society, student debt rarely enters mainstream political debate. Alexa McDonough, the NDP’s post-secondary education critic, cites the silence as a major danger.

“The single most serious threat to quality, accessible education is that there’s really no acknowledgment [from Conservatives] that there’s any real problem at all,” says McDonough.

However, something is making the Conservatives pay attention to education. On January 12, the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) released a report card giving the Conservatives an “F” grade on their plans for education. Shortly thereafter, the Conservatives dropped the much-criticized income contingent repayment (ICR) student loan schemes from their platform, prompting the CFS to raise their grade to “C-minus.”

The shift in policy suggests awareness that Canadians do not support the implementation of education policies that push the cost of education onto students and their families.

“They recognized the need to show Canadians they were on their side,” says George Soule, national chairperson of the CFS.

The pledge also suggests the Conservatives know that obligating students to pay exorbitant tuition fees via long-term debt sentences is unacceptable to Canadian voters. Now, the Conservatives’ tenuous minority will make it difficult to renege on their commitment.

The policy shift marks the latest chapter in an ongoing struggle to prove the disastrous long-term effects of student debt on Canadian society. In an environment wrought with negligent attitudes about student funding, ICR loans represent the worst in a long series of bad ideas.

ICR would match loan repayments to post-graduation incomes, allowing hard-up graduates to repay their loans over a longer period of time. However, the CFS alleges ICR schemes function to justify pushing the cost of education to individuals. “The whole point of income contingent repayment is to make students and their families pay even more for post-secondary education through massive tuition fee increases,” says Soule.

The concern is well-founded, considering a federal government document the CFS acquired under the Access to Information Act:

    ICR loans would solve the problem of university and college under-funding, by allowing institutions to increase tuition fees to cover a greater portion, or even all of its costs. Fees would be unregulated and institutions would charge whatever the market would bear. Needy students and those with cash flow problems would pay the increased fees with the help of ICR loans.

If ICR were implemented, the interest graduates would pay along with their principal could mean many would end up paying two to three times more than the original amount of tuition for their educations. Graduates with the national average debt of $25,000 would actually end up paying over $37,000 over a ten-year repayment period. Those harbouring a larger debt of $32,000 and a low enough income to pay their loan over 20 years would ultimately pay a $60,000 education bill.

The current state of many graduates suggest how ICR loans would aggravate an already dire situation. “After graduation, the struggle to pay off debt becomes immense,” says Soule. “More and more, we’re seeing graduates deferring starting families, buying homes, and participating in the economy in that way.”

The CFS says lowered tuition fees would result in a 10-12 per cent return on investment of public funds in the form of the increased productivity of a well-educated workforce and a demographic better able to invest in their communities. In light of long-term benefits of lower tuition fees and reduced debt, then, ICR is little more than a sales pitch with short-sighted appeal — what Soule calls “a quick-fix solution with negative long-term consequences.”

So why do governments think high tuition fees and long-term debt are the best ways to assist students?

“Frankly, that’s a good question,” says Soule, identifying ICR as part of a trend in government policy to treat education as a commodity. “There’s a narrow-minded view that sees the issue as one of debt management rather than student assistance.

“In the process, they effectively throw an entire generation into debt.”

While ICR may be kept in check for the time being, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty’s recent announcement that his government will raise provincial tuition fees is a grim reminder that rising costs and soaring debt will not disappear anytime soon.

The federal government sends funding to be administered by the provinces. Tuition fees and assistance programs are thus set directly or indirectly by both levels of government, and McGuinty’s announcement follows funding cuts that began happening under the Paul Martin Liberals.

“Under Martin, the federal government started eliminating its deficit by cutting funding transfers to provinces,” says Henry Mandelbaum, Executive Director of the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations. “My sense is the [Harper] Conservatives will try shifting spending power, such as tax points and revenue-generating policies, rather than offering funding assistance.”

The Conservatives’ removal of ICR nonetheless offers hope that the current situation in Ottawa can turn the tides. With a Conservative minority and a Liberal party in shambles, McDonough feels much can be done between parliamentarians and civil society groups to ease the matter. “There are considerable opportunities to do everything we can to exploit the situation to the benefit of students and their families.

“If [the Liberals] want to move from being the most right-wing government in Canadian history to a progressive-left party,” says McDonough, “bring it on. It will help us win better policy for all matters, including education.”

Given the weak minority that obligates them to adhere to their pledge to not consider ICR, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives are in a situation where they will be effectively monitored by the CFS.

“We have it writing that they will not consider ICR, and it’s our expectation they’ll hold to it,” says Soule. “We won’t give up on our campaign for reduced tuition fees, for transfers from the federal to provincial levels, and for ICRs to be completely removed from consideration.”

Perhaps it’s not too much of a pipe dream to think that if the Conservatives changed their position on education to appease Canadians, and would be wise to continue doing so, the current situation offers a window of opportunity to forge a better future for post-secondary students nationwide.