Home | tler2026

The Case for Tuition Free, Post Secondary Education.

What would be the advantages of tuition free, post secondary education across Canada? Obviously it lowers barriers of class, which is sometimes reflected in race. This is especially true for students who attend post secondary in their home towns and can live at home. It allows students to pursue their dreams and economic security. It improves citizenship and community understanding. Free tuition reduces student debt dramatically. This allows young people to redirect their finances, on graduation, to earlier home ownership or to start a business.

More education means improved productivity and innovation, economic issues that plague Canada. It would improve overall health since more educated folk are generally healthier. It will lower the crime rate, as most crime arises in those with limited opportunity. Free college improves social mobility. The post secondary financial aid system would be radically simplified.

It seems like its an overwhelmingly positive situation, however, it is a very large public expenditure which needs to be thought through, including opportunity cost, the economic concept that involves considering the utility of spending the same money on something else or not spending it at all. Canada already leads the entire world in post secondary graduates as a percentage of adults over 25. Canada is at 60% post secondary grads. In the last year available, 2023/24, Canadians spent, in ballpark numbers, $20 billion on tuition, not including international students. There are 33 million taxpayers in Canada so an order of magnitude estimate means $20 billion / 33 million = $606.00 each annually. Of course, with progressive graduated taxation, most would pay less, some at the upper end would pay more. This is before corporate taxes or international student tuition is factored in.

Universities have direct control over tuition, which is, already, just part of total revenue. This would mean the schools might have little control over priorities.

Many may cite the unequal benefit. If rich students can easily pay now, why not double down on poor kids, and middle class kids? That is certainly a consideration which leads to the classic debate, involving universality vs targeted aid, aimed at the poor.The traditional position of progressives leans towards universality believing ‘’programs for only the poor, will be poor programs’’, since they may lack important middle class support. It begs the question, why not charge the rich for K12 public education?

If enrollment spikes before capacity expands, it may put a strain on the capacity to absorb students. Would it mean lower standards, or will admission tests become the main tool to ration education?

Another consideration is labour market distortions. Do we have jobs requiring university or community college to match increased graduation rates, or should students be encouraged towards skilled trades and apprenticeships?

Some fields are already saturated while others have shortages. This can lead to credential inflation.

Canada is plagued with constitutional jurisdictional issues held over from the BNA Act. We can witness federal and provincial fights over healthcare, childcare, resource transmission. It comes down to this. The provinces often have the jurisdiction but no money and the feds have the money but not the jurisdiction. As a result, the feds need to bribe the provinces to make progressive change or conversely, provinces must beg for funding.

So what options remain for provinces or the federal government, who are unwilling or financially unable to go all in, like many other nations, to move to tuition free or virtually free tuition in post secondary?

The first is the income contingent loan program. The payback of student loans waits until a job is found and is based on the income of that job.That is not simply a tuition solution but a student loan solution. A second option is no tuition for poor students. It’s obviously cheaper but clearly involves means testing and when lines are drawn students and parents will feel cheated for landing just outside the cutoff. Some advocates say ‘’just increase the grants’’ which are non replayable federal funding. Some advocate aiming the funding aimed at areas of shortages, for example no tuition for nursing due to a severe nursing shortage, but these situations change, sometimes quickly. Others would aim at the skilled trades and apprenticeships. A simpler way might be to just put the whole tuition regime on a sliding scale. The options to increase fairness, a little or a lot, already exist but we should not lose sight of the fact that 80 nations have a zero tuition or a nominal tuition policy in place now. It’s not ‘pie in the sky’, it exists right now. ,

The Kathleen Wynne Ontario Liberal government instituted a policy of ‘’free community college’’ for students from families making less than $50 000 by offering grants that offset the tuition. This was accomplished largely by moving tuition tax credits away from higher incomes, down the income scale. The Doug Ford conservative government eliminated this as soon as elected.

Below are just some of the 80 nations with more enlightened tuition policies from zero tuition to very low.

Germany No tuition at public universities for almost all domestic or foreign students.

One of the world's largest free systems.

Norway Free tuition for all including foreign students.Small registration fee.

Finland Free for all EU/EEA students.

Sweden Free for EU/EEA students

Denmark Free for all EU students with living allowances available.

Iceland No tuition at public universities. Small registration fee.

Czech Rep. Free to study in Czech language. English programs have fees.

Austria Free or very low costs EU students. Small fees for non EU.

Very low tuition

France Public universities 170380 Euros annually