Differential tuition on trial

ERIC SMITH | A decision is expected in January in the lawsuit student Paul Ruel and the Students' Society of McGill University (SSMU) brought against the Minister of Education Pauline Marois, Quebec's attorney-general and the University over the imposition of differential tuition fees for out-of-province students.

Ruel, a bilingual francophone political science student, is from British Columbia and must pay the tuition rate set by the government for out-of-province students of $95.61 per credit as opposed to the Quebec student rate of $55.61 per credit.

Lawyer André Durocher argued on behalf of Ruel and the SSMU in Superior Court last week that by creating a category of "non-Quebec students," the Minister of Education "exercised her discretionary powers in an abusive and unreasonable way."

Although the crux of the students' case was that Marois overstepped the bounds of Quebec's Act respecting the Ministère de l'Éducation in imposing the differential fee, they also presented a case arguing unlawful discrimination based on the Quebec and Canadian Charters of Rights.

"We made three arguments," said Ruel. "The core of the argument is the administrative law argument that we do not believe that Minister Marois has the authority to make the decision. The second facet of the argument is that the decision she took is contrary to the Quebec Charter. Third, we argued that the decision is discriminatory and impedes mobility guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

SSMU's Vice-President (University Affairs) Elizabeth Gomery handled the case for the Society. She said she is pleased with last week's court proceedings: "I think we made a really good argument."

The University has opposed the imposition of differential fees in principle. Although McGill has no quarrel with the level of fees set for out-of-province students, both Senate and the Board of Governors have passed resolutions declaring the University's opposition to differential tuition fees for students based on their province of origin.

And in a column published in the Gazette in November, Principal Bernard Shapiro stated: "Any policy that encourages, however inadvertently, the balkanization of higher education  and I believe that the differential fee is one of these  is and will be counterproductive to the jurisdiction bringing it forward. It promises, indeed, to impoverish us all."

Students say they were surprised in court to hear McGill's lawyer Georges Thibodeau argue that the imposition of differential fees is not discriminatory.

Although Thibodeau did state at the proceedings that McGill is "disappointed with the decision the ministry has taken," he also argued that it does not constitute discrimination or an attack on any fundamental right or liberty under the law.

SSMU President Tara Newell said, "I was concerned McGill's lawyer spent time arguing the fee differential was not discriminatory. The University is not standing up to the principle. It's important for them to be consistent and consistent they have not been."

Ruel also took the University to task for what he calls "a mixed message" adding, "McGill had an opportunity to make a statement on differential tuition fees and it passed up that opportunity."

Although neither McGill nor the Ministry will comment on the case before a decision is rendered, Thibodeau said the argument that the differential fee is not discriminatory is consistent with McGill's opposition in principle to the minister's fee structure.

"McGill has a position (on differential fees) and that position does not change. But there is a difference between political ideas and law. The students attacked McGill for illegal discrimination. We believe it is inopportune discrimination, but it is not illegal discrimination."